9/29/2006 06:13:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One may remember reading that the Mallard, who has been touting the fact that he wants to debate "the issues," seemed to know nothing when asked by the Tucson Weekly about one of the most contentious ballot propositions this year, Proposition 107.
Terry Krukemyer, Mallard's campaign manager, after researching the issue, finally gave a response to Weekly reporter Saxon Burns. He gave a response that would warm the hearts of us lefties; he seems to oppose the measure. He put it a bit strangely though:

Let's say I had a small town that was kind of a beatnik town where, you know, the people there--it became a haven for gay people, let's just put it that way. And don't take it in any kind of derogatory manner, but just like a lot of gay people live there, and people like that town and the way they work. Well, guess what? Those people would like their political entity to offer same-sex benefits, and this statute would disallow that.

Beatnik? Exactly what decade are you living in? At least he didn't crawl back any further and say "flappers" or "mudsills."
I'm imagining that there is some far-out small community, maybe in Graham County, where the residents wear berets and beat bongos while listening to Charles Mingus and reciting Allen Ginsberg verses. Hey, Arizona can be an odd place.|W|P|115958069856177375|W|P|Hipsters, Flipsters and Finger-Poppin' Daddies: Knock Me Your Lobes|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/29/2006 03:20:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Rep. Russell Pearce called for mass deportations of illegal immigrants the other day. Well, that's pretty much what we'd expect from Pearce. Bad, but Pearce is sort of like fellow Valley resident Mike Tyson. We watch every new outrage and it just doesn't suprise us anymore.
The trouble here was that Pearce decided to use a term that many find very offensive: wetback. Yes, he used it in a historical context, since he was quoting the name of the Eisenhower-era program "Operation Wetback." There were a thousand ways to talk about this program without using the term, he could have even said, "the unfortunately named Operation Wetback." Nope, he chose to use that term.
By the way, Rusty, Evan Mecham claimed his endorsement of the term "Pickaniny" was in a "historical context" too. I haven't heard George Allen use this dodge yet. Give him time.
The offensively named Operation Wetback (see, Rusty, that's the way to handle historical context) caught up naturalized Americans, even people that were born here. This was from a project that wasn't even of the scale that Pearce is calling for. How do we do this without violating the civil rights of Hispanics? I'm not even sure how we find all of these people, given the reluctance of people in his party to go after employers.
Even his own Republican running mate, Rep. Mark Anderson, voiced misgivings about the idea to the Arizona Republic:

It's not realistic, once the border is secure, we can come up with some way for people to earn their citizenship

Pearce is a "senior advisor" to Len Munsil, who has been relatively moderate on these issues. How does Munsil feel about Pearce's endorsement of this plan or for that matter, his use of the term "wetback"?
NB - I wrestled with the title of this post. I figured that, like Pearce, I was going to be "very graphic" to make a point.|W|P|115957041804334261|W|P|Don't Call Me Wetback, Redneck (With Appologies to Sly and the Family Stone)|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/29/2006 07:07:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Today is Nobel Laureate and former Polish President Lech Wałęsa's birthday. This comes only a few days after the 30th anniversary of the founding of KOR (Komitet dla Obrony Robotników), a coalition of workers and intellectuals that laid the foundations for Solidarność.|W|P|115953946109371665|W|P|Wszystkiego Najlepszego, Pan Prezident!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/29/2006 06:36:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Arizona Daily Starreported this morning that Kathleen Dunbar's lawsuit against several citizens and the Democratic Party has been dismissed. The lawsuit has been headed in this direction for months.
For those who don't remember, Councilmember Dunbar sued several teachers and Democratic party activists for a mailer that went out. She also threatened to sue people who wrote letters to the editor. I was frustrated that she didn't try to sue me.
I found this all ironic, given Dunbar's support for tort reform (she claimed "severe mental and physical anguish" and $1,000,000 in damages) and the charges that she threw around during her past campaigns. I guess I should not have been suprised, she threatened now-Senator Paula Aboud with a lawsuit back in 2001 too. This was not isolated behavior: as a council member she tried to have me thrown off a citizen's committee because of I didn't support her agenda (even though I was on the losing side most of the time), and during her last campaign, Pima County Republican Chair Judy White threatened the job of Democratic Chair Paul Eckerstrom on Dunbar's behalf.
It's good to see the courts stand up for democracy and citizen participation. Well, this is the last time Dunbar will see her name in the paper. Good riddance.|W|P|115953868868682339|W|P|Dunbar's Last News Story|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/29/2006 10:05:00 PM|W|P|cc burro|W|P|TEDSKI--

Delicious irony re the lawsuit damage request.9/28/2006 08:43:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Jon Kyl, I have to admit, has run a couple of effective ads. One was the one with the various Sheriffs condemning Jim Pederson for endorsing the 1986 amnesty. It was too bad that it turned out that Pederson did no such thing, and that Kyl actually did.
By the way, where was Kyl's own County Sheriff...he is a Republican, right?
An ad that's been running a few days has Kyl looking directly at the camera and telling us voters that he had never voted to cut Social Security.
Well, that's mostly because he was never asked to. Not directly, anyway.
The vote that Pederson is refering to was a vote on March 17th of this year, Senate Vote #68. The vote was to divert money from the Social Security trust fund to fund private accounts. Yes, there was never an up or down vote to cut Social Security benefits, but it is disingenuous for Kyl to present this plan as "protecting" Social Security. Far from it, had this passed, it would have surely resulted in benefit cuts eventually.
It didn't pass, because every single Democrat plus a handful of Republicans (including those not usually seen crossing the aisle like Conrad Burns and Jim Talent) voted against it.
In the ad, Kyl claims that this vote protected the Social Security trust fund. I suppose it does if "protect" means "take money out." Maybe I like that definition. Say, Senator, can I "protect" your checking account?
Maybe he means the vote protected Social Securtiy, but not necessarily that he agreed with it. Hey, I'll cut him a break.
In May, Kyl had the chance to vote against cutting benefits. Not directly, of course. A plan that called for benefit cuts was never brought before congress (the hightly touted Bush plan never made it that far). However, there was a "sense of the Senate" resolution (SCR 18) that read as follows:

Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in dept, and a failure to act by 2042 would result in deep benefit cuts; therefore Congress should take action to address Social Security.

Pretty clear, are you against benefit cuts or not? Kyl voted no on this one.|W|P|115950395886858390|W|P|If You Squint Right, You Can See A Ship|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/28/2006 11:41:00 PM|W|P|Michael|W|P|I noticed that Sherriff Joe was conspicuously absent from Kyl's ad too. Didn't he endorse Janet in 2002?

Thanks for debunking the latest lies from Jon Kyl.9/28/2006 07:48:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I never get to write about the CD 1 race. It's been too long.
Rick Renzi has been touting the endorsement of Albert Hale. This is a big deal, given that Hale is Democratic member of the State Senate, as well as a former congressional candidate and President of the Navajo Nation.
'Cept...he didn't endorse Renzi.
Here's a statement by Senator Hale:

I have not endorsed Rick Renzi and I call on Rick Renzi to take my name off his endorsement list immediately. Putting my name on this list without my knowledge and formal authorization is both irresponsible and unacceptable. It is unfortunate that Rick Renzi would choose to recklessly exploit my name in such a manner. It undermines his credibility.

Oops.|W|P|115949885882744975|W|P|That's Some Endorsement|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/28/2006 04:09:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Mallard is trumpeting an invitation to a debate with Raúl Grijalva. It's too bad that the invitation was actually to a candidate forum and not a debate. Details!
The interesting thing about his press release was this little tidbit:

Ron Drake noted that he is looking forward to several debates with Grijalva in front of several different types of audiences. “I’m glad to meet the Congressman anytime for a debate, whether it’s at the U of A or the lounge at the Silver Saddle. “The more we discuss the issues, the more the voters will be better informed,” he said.

For those who don't know, the Silver Saddle is a steakhouse located at 6th Avenue and the Freeway that is frequented by Grijalva. I have my suspicions about what Drake is trying to imply here, but I'll cut him a break and assume he has a little class.
Drake has some sort of problem with Grijalva going to the Silver Saddle. So much so that he showed up at the place with the son of long time Grijalva foe Luís Gonzales and questioned the staff. This is the most bizarre part of the whole story. Here we are, a bit more than a month before the election, and this guy running for congress is going to Grijalva's favorite restaurants and grilling the staff? Don't you have, I dunno, issues to discuss, Ron?
It smacks to me of the sort of amateurish campaigning that Gonzales and his crew are famous for. Drake ought to find some better pals. Maybe some with an ethic or two.
So, Ron, what exactly is wrong with the Silver Saddle? Many of the families you hope to represent can't afford to hang out at McMahon's like you do, so they go out for a nice evening at places like Silver Saddle, Mi Nidito, maybe even take-out from ABC Market or Mary's Lucky Dollar.
By the way Ron, I hang out at a Fourth avenue bar called the Surly Wench. I, my brother and Representative Jonathan Paton have been spotted at Hotel Congress. We had better never run for congress, right?|W|P|115948835437073208|W|P|Dude, That's Bush League|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/28/2006 07:24:00 PM|W|P|Erik|W|P|Silver Saddle has excellent mequite grilled steaks.9/28/2006 09:54:00 PM|W|P|Mexilina|W|P|OK..besides tasty steak, their salad bar has a little-known secret: FRESH crab salad (coleslaw?). Mmmm it's Yummy!

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the french onion soup...ay Tedski now I'm hungry..9/29/2006 10:54:00 AM|W|P|BrittF|W|P|They have great beans, and I do have to admit. The steaks are great, AHHHH mesquite grilled steaks. Can't get them out here.9/29/2006 04:22:00 PM|W|P|stack0verflow|W|P|Yeah, but watch out for the loaded potato -- it's a cardiac arrest waiting to happen... oh btw, YUM!

Well, I'm just happy that Mallard only grilled the staff and not burn them at the steak.9/28/2006 07:05:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I've been having a great deal of trouble saving my night time posts lately; I don't know what is up with Blogger. Last night, for example, it acted like it did not save my post on the EMILY's list poll, then it listed three seperate saves but only displayed one post. It showed one comment, but wouldn't allow you to read it. I did get it e-mailed to me though (Yes, Phx Kid, I'll post a Minuteman poll if they do one.)
Anyway, I'm sorry if this has inconvienienced anyone.|W|P|115945255396863485|W|P|Blogger Goofiness|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/28/2006 07:30:00 AM|W|P|SonoranDesertRat|W|P|Blogger needs to work on its interface, becasue it never seems to be sure whether or not it's saved your post or whether or not it's been published... it also needs to work on user friendliness, because it's a**-backwards in so many ways.

(For safety's sake - compose your posts offline in Word or Notepad, or for us Mac users, TextEdit... and then paste it into the post window on Blogger. This way you don't lose a post when Blogger flakes out. Don't ask me why I know this...)9/28/2006 09:14:00 AM|W|P|Michael|W|P|I've lost more than a few posts using Blogger myself. It's frustrating. I think hosting my blog on my own domain rather than Blogspot probably causes a few problems but helps me avoid a few others. Something to consider? That or switch to another provider, but I don't have the time or energy to reconfigure my own stuff.9/28/2006 06:34:00 PM|W|P|Tony GOPrano|W|P|Being new to this Blogger thing, I encompassed the same thing Ted. I found saving as a draft, then posting seems to work better. Just keep on pluggin, its bound to get better someday.

TonyGOPranowww.PoliticoMafioso.com9/28/2006 06:40:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Gawd, I gotta take issue with an article written by a friend of mine.
This morning, the Arizona Daily Star ran a piece critical of Jim Pederson's claim that Jon Kyl voted to raise his pay.
The article notes that Kyl voted to raise his pay once, as a house member in 1989. But then states:

The other pay-raise votes cited in the ad are misleading. Three of the votes aren't for pay raises, but votes not to cancel an automatic cost-of-living raise. Kyl voted not to reject the raise, which is not the same as voting for a pay raise.

"...which is not the same as voting for a pay raise." Did the votes result in raises in his pay? Well, yeah they did, didn't they? How is that not a pay raise? Would he have allowed a similar system for the minimum wage?
The system of not voting for pay raises but instead voting not to cancel a pre-planned pay raise was established during Democratic control and was exactly the sort of legislative tomfoolery that the Republicans claimed that they were elected to stop. It exists entirely so that people like Kyl can give themselves raises but then can claim that "Au contraire, I never voted to give myself a raise."
Nice try Jon. A little later I'll talk about your claim that "I never voted to cut Social Security."|W|P|115945172398535150|W|P|He Didn't Vote for a Pay Raise, But His Vote Did Raise His Pay|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/28/2006 09:10:00 AM|W|P|Michael|W|P|No wonder Jon Kyl can afford to write so many blank checks to the President. He's raking it in with all the pay raises he's given himself over the years!

Please excuse my mixed metaphors...9/28/2006 10:56:00 AM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|How about following Harry Reid's idea that the minimum wage go up every year (so that it doesn't accumulate over a decade until conservatives are complaining about a proposed 25% jump in one year, just to catch up), and index it using the same index Congressional pay raises are indexed to?

Oh, yeah. It's about the market. (Never mind that given the urgent need to address multiple societal problems, I'd be happy to serve in Congress for zero pay, the market doesn't apply there-- maybe that's why they have such a wonderful socialist universal health care system that they pay nothing for, and a retirement system that is paid for with Social Security funds but is much better than Social Security.)9/27/2006 09:56:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|EMILY's List released a poll today showing Gabrielle Giffords at 54% and Randy Graf at 29%. No word on Jay Quick.
The polling memo also shows that Graf has a 42% unfavorable rating, and that Giffords seems to have closed the gap on name ID. She is now known by 78% of the district's voters compared to 80% that know Graf.
I have a hard time buying that Graf's numbers are so low, but I can definitely buy Giffords being at or above 50%.|W|P|115942044065913707|W|P|Wait, Are You Telling Me That This Emily is a Pole? Is She From Katowice?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/28/2006 11:00:00 AM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|Maybe she's from Chicago. More Poles there than in Katowice.

Then again, I better quit while I am ahead. I already got in trouble once this week with your other half (and your brother laid the wood on me for it).9/27/2006 08:31:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Russell Pearce and Laura Knaperak are looking to call a special legislative session to discuss tearing down the 9-11 memorial. That's right, it just can't wait until January.
That's not Teen Spirit, that smells like election year politics.
Why can't this wait until January? Oh yeah, no guarantee they will both be there.
These folks in the legislature know that they stand, even in their rosiest scenarios, a pretty decent chance of having to deal with Janet Napolitano for another four years, right? This is a really good example of why voters seem to want to keep her in office.|W|P|115937145903753724|W|P|Because It's That Important, I Guess|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/27/2006 03:53:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Republicans using 9/11 for political purposes? Say it is not so!9/27/2006 04:13:00 PM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|Oh, I say let's have that special session and let's do it immediately. In fact, let's televise the hearings.

I would absolutely love to see these morons bring the commissioners, who include 9/11 widow Donna Bird, firefighters like Billy Shield and Crystal Allman, and Marines like Viana Bruce, into a hearing room and say the same things to their faces that they apparently have no problem saying to the lapdog press.

Please, please, please commit political suicide by holding hearings in a special session Laura and Russell.

Pretty please with sugar on top!!!!9/27/2006 05:17:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Oh man, I would take the day off from work to watch that in person.9/27/2006 08:12:00 PM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|The 9/11 memorial will be added to a list that already includes abortion, immigration and gay marriage as the hot buttons the GOP will push to divide and scare the electorate, as well as energize their conservative base.

Let's hope that the dwindling herd of GOP moderates and the independents are just as angered by the politics of fear and division as they SHOULD BE!9/28/2006 08:38:00 AM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|Great, Elizabeth! You bring the drinks and I'll bring chips & dip!

I just heard on the radio an interview with Billy Shields. Apparently, there were quite a few public hearings on the content/design of the memorial held all over the state. They were open to the public and were arranged to give everyone and anyone a chance to put their two cents in on the design.

Gee, I wonder if Len Munsil, Greg Patterson, Laura Knaperek or Russell Pearce attended any of them. Hmmm...9/27/2006 07:24:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Over on Arizona 8th, they are claiming that Gabrielle Giffords is just like Steve Huffman and dodging debates.
This is, on the face of it, silly. Giffords has agreed to appear at six debates between now and the general election. By way of comparison, Giffords appeared at her first primary debate in January, and over the next roughly eight months, she appeared in fourteen debates and "candidate fora." This would be six debates in eight weeks. Get out your slide rules and figure out the difference in the ratios. This will be on the test.
Six debates. That's more than Len Munsil will have with Janet Napolitano or that Jon Kyl will have with Jim Pederson, and those people are running state wide. This is so many debates that even I might get sick of seeing Giffords's smile.
The claim over on Arizona 8th is that Giffords refused to appear at any debate where there will be less than 200 people. Those of you that have been to these in the past know that many of these events are lucky to get one hundred, and that is a stretch. I thought this claim was strange, so I did something that violates blogger ethics.
I actually called the Giffords campaign to find out about this.
"That's just ridiculous," they told me.
It turns out that Giffords was invited to appear at over thirty debates. Did Randy Graf pledge to appear at every single one of them? I hope so, since it won't leave him much time to campaign.|W|P|115936819466578535|W|P|Um, Sounds Nice. Too Bad It's Bunk|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/27/2006 08:24:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Nicely said, Ted. As I mentioned on AZ 8th and on Blog for Arizona. I think, strategically, 6 is TOO many. Graf has no money...or very little. He has very few ways to get his message out other than to attend events and score points in the debates. The latter will get him free press and possibly momentum with it.

This is the very reason that Jon Kyl wants to give Pederson as few opportunities to debate him as possible. Why take the risk? At a recent Pederson fundraiser I attended he decried the fact that Kyl may only give him 2 opportunties in mid to late October to debate him. How gracious!!!

Anyhow, I think 6 is a LOT and that it is quite gutsy for the Giffords camp to engage in. A few of my colleagues here disagree with me, but I know what I would do if I were Graf.9/27/2006 09:19:00 AM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|Calling the campaign is a violation of blogger ethics? I'll have to keep that in mind.

I reacted at the AZ 8 thread as well and also posted at my own blog about this.

I think Randy is on a collision course with the "Graffinator."

Sorry.9/27/2006 12:15:00 PM|W|P|Randall Holdridge|W|P|Within reason, the more opportunites people have to see the candidates side-by-side, the better it is for Ms. Giffords

Moreover, with the exception of the Sierra Vista debate on Oct. 23, unlikely to be covered by Tucson media, the venues and sponsors, which will govern the topics debated, are going to raise problems for Graf. For example, would you want to defend his positions on social security and health care in front of the Pima Council on Aging?9/27/2006 02:59:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Well said Randall.

When the campaign negotiated the who sponsored, the where, etc., I think the audience in most cases will be Giffords friendly.

I also share your belief that the more that see and hear Gabrielle the better. She is fantastic, smart, and is charismatic. I am the same age as she is and wish very much that I had those abilities. However, people can also hear her in non-debate settings too (smile) and what often matters most in a debate (apart from the crowd) is what the press SAYS that happened. I know those in charge of her campaign know this and are super smart and competent, so I worry less and less.9/26/2006 09:41:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Republican Attorney General Candidate Bill Montgomery has so far had a couple of lame-ass excuses for hiring illegal aliens to appear in his illegally-paid-for campaign ads. First, he claimed that he didn't know who the production company hired. The "blame the contractor" argument will be familiar to anyone who has followed immigration cases involving Wal-Mart or big time California growers.
His new claim is that Terry Goddard's campaign is racist against Hispanics, this despite the fact that Goddard's campaign manager is Hispanic. Montgomery claims that Goddard is assuming the actors are illegal aliens based entirely on their race. Goddard's "assumption" is based on a report filed by a Town of Gilbert employee who spoke to the "actors" as well as a sworn affidavit by a citizen (a registered Republican even) who did the same.
What is truly amazing is that Montgomery is claiming that Goddard is racist at all. Let me get this straight, Montgomery was looking to put a couple of dark skinned folks getting arrested in an ad to scare the heck out of voters so they will vote for him, and Goddard is the racist?
As I said, Goddard's claims are based on a report and an affidavit from witnesses that talked to the actors. They asked them point blank about their status, and they indicated that they were undocumented.
I'm wondering if maybe these "actors" were more talented than we thought. Maybe they were method-trained and they just were in character. Montgomery, if you use that one, please give me credit.|W|P|115933403463377777|W|P|Bill Montgomery Doing His Best to Prove Why We Need to Strengthen Our Immigration Laws|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/26/2006 06:51:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Len Munsil had a press conference yesterday to highlight concerns about the new 9-11 memorial at Wesley Bolin Plaza. Munsil wants to prevent there from being "political" messages.
As a guy that used to write for an old Revs fanzine used to say, "Rumpswab."
The monument, by the way, wasn't hatched on the 11th floor by nefarious gubernatorial nomenklatura. The memorial was designed by a commission appointed by Republican Jane Hull and Democrat Janet Napolitano, and included several people who had family members die in the attack.
By the way, several firefighters showed up. Many of these worked the "pile" in the days after the attack in an attempt to give their brothers and sisters proper burrials and honors. They crashed Munsil's event to show their support for the memorial.
Many of the objections are to statements on the memorial that are anti-violence. Well, the memorial is dedicated to more than 3,000 victims of a senseless violent attack. A condemnation of violence here and there seems appropriate, doncha think?
Some of the objections are quite a stretch. Espresso Pundit, for example cites this part as objectionable:

Personally, I thought the point there was that we go to war when we are provoked. But over on Espresso Pundit, the claim is that number three is a problem since it is a reference to the Gulf of Tonkin, thus we on the left (who apparenly run everything) are making claims about this war. If we (because we're in charge, right?) wanted to do such a thing, we would not have been so subtle and included things like the bombing of the USS Maine, the "attack" on Ft. Brown and the Bascom Affair. By the way, since when do conservatives object to the basis of the Vietnam War?
Over on the conservative blog Hot Air, they object to a quote that says "You Don't Win Battles of Terrorism With More Battles." Their own picture of the quote though includes a second quote right above it that says "We Must Bomb Back." This seems more a recognition of the emotions and opinions of Americans after the attacks than an anti-war message.
That's what it comes down to. Munsil claims that his displeasure is on behalf of the victim's families. He couldn't find any to stand with him. Instead, he was surrounded by the families of Iraq veterans. Once again, the conservatives seem to be trying to connect 9-11 with Iraq, even though many of their own leaders aren't making such a claim any more. Anyone that shows anything that can be conflated as an objection to this anything in this war is doing less than their patriotic duty. (Say, where was this oh-so-necessary blind support for the President when we had troops in Kosovo?) To this end, any 9-11 message is supposed to explicitly be a pro-Iraq war message. Given the controversy around this conflict, doing that would have been the "political ploy" that Munsil objects to.
NB - Can Espresso Pundit's objection to the Tonkin reference be construed as lack of support for our Vietnam veterans? Just curious.|W|P|115928291503659539|W|P|Critics Complain that 9-11 Memorial Isn't Pro-War|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/26/2006 11:50:00 AM|W|P|Michael|W|P|I didn't think it was necessary for Arizona to have a 9/11 memorial in the first place, as the attacks happened 3000 miles away. But there are clearly local connections and Arizonans who lost loved ones, so now I say more power to 'em.

As someone who lived in New York State at the time of the attack, had loved ones in the city that day (all of whom survived), and who deeply mourned the violence and death, I find these partisan attacks on the Governor (who is clearly only one piece of the process leading up to the monument) to be tasteless and pointless. Munsil (and Trent Franks, apparently) can't attack her on her record, which has been mostly positive. Instead, he has to make an issue out of nothing. Of course, he's been doing that for most of his career.

I'm tempted to mail Munsil and Franks copies of "A People's History of the United States". "Revisionism" as they call it is only that from the perspective of the people who had the power and position to write the popular history. Since when is looking at all root causes of a problem a problem? Or nuance for that matter?9/26/2006 12:24:00 PM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|Who's on the 11th floor?9/26/2006 12:34:00 PM|W|P|OVD|W|P|It was very wise of Munsil to have another event in Maricopa County because he would not want to waste all his time down in the border counties where he lost to Goldwater.

The 11th floor is the governor's office.9/26/2006 12:55:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|Michael:

What is wrong with a 9/11 memorial? It's an event that we should remember, because the specific target might have been New York, but the target was in fact the U.S.A.

And Ted's point is right on target regarding the blurring (intentional or otherwise) between the war on terror and Iraq. And even if he couldn't find any 9/11 family members to stand with him, Munsil also apparently failed to find any Afghan war veterans to stand with him either.

Now it's true that we have invested many times as much money, manpower and resources in Iraq (chasing what?) as we have in Afghanistan (chasing the people who attacked us) so that even if there was a connection (however spurious) between Afghanistan and Iraq, one would still have to question the priorities of this administration.9/26/2006 01:01:00 PM|W|P|George Tuttle|W|P|I think it is very relevant that we have a 9/11 memorial in Arizona.

Why?

Because that event forever changed this country (and not for the better).

I want people to remember what Civil Liberties were about.I want people to remember what our country was really about before the Bush Administration used this event to change the discourse of politics.I want people to remember what the events that followed this event cost many families.

Yes, it is very relevant!9/26/2006 02:47:00 PM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|I thought the governor's office was on the 9th floor.

In any event, it's clear that Munsil is just copying the tired old GOP play to use 9/11 as a political tool to distract from the mess they've made in this country over the last five years.9/26/2006 02:57:00 PM|W|P|Espo|W|P|Excellent analysis! Best shoot down of Malkin and Patterson I've read yet.9/26/2006 08:42:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Ted I don’t mean to be issuing a fatwa about what you do or don’t cover but this story is pretty juicy.

But if you don’t want to talk about it I understand.9/26/2006 08:51:00 PM|W|P|shrimplate|W|P|The real reason Munsil doesn't like the monument is because it's covered with words.

Republicans are not on friendly terms with words. They just don't like 'em.9/27/2006 03:49:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Hey Phx Kid, how is Senator McCain's adopted daughter doing?9/28/2006 09:24:00 AM|W|P|Michael|W|P|I never said an AZ 9/11 memorial was irrelevant, just that I initially didn't believe it was necessary. New Yorkers appreciated the outpouring of support immediately following the attacks, but we grew to resent how those attacks were used to justify all kinds of atrocities in the months and years that followed.

We're naturally a little skeptical anytime anyone from outside the region erects monuments to the victims of that day, given our past experience with how those victims have been used for ammunition in even more death and destruction. We sometimes forget that everyone else was traumatized that day too, even if it wasn't your backyard that it happened in.

Didn't mean to offend, but please remember that the trauma of the day did hit a lot closer to home for us because it WAS home. This isn't about "my trauma is worse than your trauma", but it is about being wary about how that trauma is manipulated for political points, which I know is a concern we all share.9/25/2006 11:15:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Once in a while, even this current congress can do the right thing. Today they passed HR 5857, a bill changing the name of Tucson's main post office to honor Morris King "Mo" Udall, the greatest legislator this state has ever produced.
The bill was authored by the man that is trying hard to be a close second, Rep. Raúl Grijalva.|W|P|115925181585773136|W|P|Cherrybell Post Office to be Named for Mo Udall|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/25/2006 12:42:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The other day in the debate between the two candidates in the Illinois 6th district, Republican Peter Roskam accused Democrat Tammy Duckworth of "cutting and running" in Iraq.
Let's see what Roskam's definition for "cutting and running" is:
In November of 2004, Major Ladda "Tammy" Duckworth was piloting a Blackhawk helicopter in Iraq when the chin bubble was hit by a rocket propelled grenade. The grenade penetrated the aircraft and exploded between her legs. Despite her injuries, she was determined to safely land the craft. She could not do so, and the co-pilot was able to successfully land. Duckworth's injuries cost her both legs and severely damaged her right arm. Only one other member of the crew was injured.
Roskam, on the other hand, has been fighting Operation Iraqi Freedom from the Illinois State Assembly and spent his "prime draft age" years as an intern for Tom Delay and Henry Hyde.
The levels these guys will stoop to in their rhetoric continues to astound me.|W|P|115921486754724607|W|P|Why So Many Republicans Suck|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/25/2006 02:35:00 PM|W|P|markg8|W|P|Bush is coming to visit (Oct. 13?)and Roskam will stand proudly next to him on podium. DeLay, Norquist and Cheney have all raised big money for him, though Cheney and Laura were the only ones to come to the district I believe. Lil Petey is a truly reprehensible character. Listen to him in the first debate recorded Friday and broadcast last night for the first time here:

http://www.wbbm780.com/

Sen. Bob Kerrey who lost a leg in Vietnam endorses her here in this commercial:

http://www.tammyduckworth.com/

Even Bob Dole, another wounded war vet says she's a great candidate and we've got that on the back of flyers we're handing out all over the district.

Tammy is a strong candidate, really knows her stuff. Bachelors in Political Science. Masters in International Affairs from The George Washington Uni. in DC and was working on her doctorate when she was called up for Iraq.

Great sense of humor too. Saturday morning at a rally with Durbin she was relating a story about what a regular guy he is (full disclosure: I'm a volunteer) and she told us about driving up fromdownstate in her E85 Ford extended cab pickup (more disclosure: my dad sold Ford trucks for decades and they fed my family) with Durbin and her husband. The Senate Minority Whip insisted on squeezing in back and she tried to get him to switch with her by saying, "I'm the only one here who doesn't actually need any legroom."

Last night a number of us were phonebanking and she came over to chat. We tried to get her to sit down but she demurred. She said if she uses her cane and leans on her right artifical leg it's sort of like sitting anyway because the leg's gone from the hip. Frankly I think sitting down and getting up from a chair is more effort than resting on the leg. The other one is gone above the knee. Her arm was broken in 3 places and there's still a couple of yards of stitches all around it. I hear she lost almost half her blood before they got her stablized. Army medivacs are the best. Her recovery is amazing. She is one of the most energetic campaigners I've ever seen and incredibly positive.

Listen to that debate. Roskam won some courtroom litagator award, and is supposedly a crack debater from years in the IL Senate. She more than held her own. I was worried about this guy. But not anymore, he's a lightweight who's so tonedeaf he was actually arguing for earmarks and less spending practically in the same breath.9/25/2006 02:45:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|Just keep in mind that these are the same kind of people as Ann Coulter, who implied that Max Cleland was drunk from partying when he lost three limbs in Vietnam due to an explosion caused when he was departing a helicopter and a grenade fell off onto the ground.

These are people who will say or do anything about anybody.

It's amazing how many of these Republican 'know it all' hawks seem to have gained most of their knowlege about war from playing Risk late at night with their college buddies.9/25/2006 05:37:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|And when one person makes even one peep against them, they cry like Wallace after he ticks off a former US President.10/02/2006 04:02:00 PM|W|P|Obbop|W|P|The elite's government FEARS you!!!!!!

Their fear is manifested in the laws they pass. Here is a law banning what MANY of the Founders wrote is a RIGHT of citizens when a government no longer represents them:

Section 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, orteaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety ofoverthrowing or destroying the government of the United States orthe government of any State, Territory, District or Possessionthereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, byforce or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of anysuch government; orWhoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of anysuch government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printedmatter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying anygovernment in the United States by force or violence, or attemptsto do so; orWhoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society,group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage theoverthrow or destruction of any such government by force orviolence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, anysuch society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposesthereof -Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more thantwenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment bythe United States or any department or agency thereof, for the fiveyears next following his conviction.If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named inthis section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisonednot more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible foremployment by the United States or any department or agencythereof, for the five years next following his conviction.As used in this section, the terms ''organizes'' and''organize'', with respect to any society, group, or assembly ofpersons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of newunits, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes,and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

The federal government is allowing MILLIONS of illegals to invade our country. Corporate America is becoming increasingly more powerful and influential. Yet, according to the government of for and by the elites YOU, a citizen, have to accept whatever the government does with NO recourse other than voting...... and there is sufficient proof that shows to me voting is worthless since the entrenched power structure ensures that the emplaced elite class can not be removed.

Several Founders specifically wrote of the people's right to abolish a government when it no longer represents them.

We are forced to live under an elite's TYRANNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!9/25/2006 07:15:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One of the things y'all may not realize is that every time someone posts a comment, I get it e-mailed to me. This means that a couple of funny things can happen. I get comments that have been deleted, so I get to see those comments with all of the spelling mistakes or that the author thought better of posting.
The other funny thing is the number of comments that get posted to old posts. Many of these are Republican office holders who suddenly discover that I mentioned them a month before and decide that they need to respond. "Respond" is a strong word, since many times the comments are rote campaign talking points. It's particularly funny because these comments are often several paragraphs, but since the original entry has long scrolled away, no one will read them.
Roy Warden finally discovered that I had mentioned him in a post three weeks ago. I was criticizing his behavior at the AFL-CIO's labor day picnic. He starts his reply this way:

You Left Wingers are really stupid!

Um, okay. That tells you a bit about the tone of the reply. We liberals are stupid, but...

I'm the only true Liberal and Humanitarian on the issue of Illegal Aliens.

Okay.
Oh, by the way, I don't write as well as George Orwell. Warden, literary critic, helpfully pointed this out to me.
He goes on to compare himself to Emiliano Zapata, a comparison I would buy a little more if he would pronounce his name correctly during his rants, and "Marcos." I think he's talking about Subcomandante Marcos, but maybe he means Imelda Marcos. How many shoes do you own, Mr. Warden?
Warden seems to have an odd definition of the word "humanitarian," since his charitable works seem to only involve disrupting city council meetings, writing abusive letters to newspaper editors, spewing racist and anti-Catholic rhetoric, trying to incite riots and screaming about pedophilia and ponography when there are eight-year olds near by.
Warden owns a different dictionary than I do I guess. Warden's Unabridged has this definition of humanitarian, while mine instead defines this sort of behavior as just being an asshole.|W|P|115919621243332348|W|P|Roy Warden Replies!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/25/2006 04:20:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|Oh, gee Ted.

I checked out his rant, and saw the line, 'Bet you don't have the guts to report the cheer, 'Viva Zapata.'

Consider that Emiliano Zapata led one of the three attacks on American territory by foreign fighters since the War of 1812 (I'm lumping Pearl Harbor and the occupation of Attu and Kiska together on this) and I wonder if he also would cheer, 'Viva Tojo!' or 'Viva bin Laden!'

And that comment about checking the hair out on your chest-- sounds kinda kinky to me. You know what they say about homophobes-- the most viscious ones are often that way because they are personally trying to deny something.9/25/2006 04:42:00 PM|W|P|Tom Prezelski|W|P|Mr. Blake is confusing Emiliano Zapata with Pancho Villa. This is a capitol mistake in some quarters.

It was the remnants of Villa's "Army of the North" that staged the raid on Columbus, New Mexico in 1916.

Zapata opperated mostly in the Southern states.9/25/2006 05:29:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Capital as in death penalty or corporal as in he gets the ruler?9/26/2006 05:18:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|Whoops, Tom

YOU ARE CORRECT!!

I know that, too.

I will have to repent by becoming more familiar with the history of Mexico.9/28/2006 02:52:00 PM|W|P|Roy Warden|W|P|Why do you liberals work so hard to avoid the central issue?

Zapata was a Mexican Patriot. He fought to liberate (Brown skinned) Mexicans from the white Mexican elite, which has held Mexico in bondage since Cortez.

Zapata fought his country.If 250,000 "Migrants" would have had the courage to remain home and vote in the last election, major reform in Mexico would now be underway.9/30/2006 06:07:00 PM|W|P|Roy Warden|W|P|Yesterday Karl Rove showed up in Tucson to pick up several sacks of cash and to thank the local left wingers, including Isabel Garcia of the the local "Humanitarian" group Derechos Humanos, for working so hard on behalf of the Republican Party.

Seventy five years ago Lenin used to call these folks "Dupes" and "Useful Idiots"; the uneducated American left wingers that worked so hard to assist the Communists.

Now the Repuplicans call them "Amigos". Why? Because they keep the endless flow of Mexicans coming, the workers that the Republican factory owners love to hire for subservient wages.

See, it's always the rich and the powerful exploiting the poor and the weak.

I call for the completion of the Revolution of Zapata, so the Mexican People can liberate themselves from those who exploit them--including the American left wing that has now joined hands with rich Republicans in some sort of unholy alliance.

http://www.wardenburnsmexicanflags.com9/24/2006 10:51:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Conservative bloggers have been gloating about the new poll reported in the Arizona Daily Star this morning that shows that Gabrielle Giffords is now leading by "only" twelve points. They are noting that this is a drop from the nineteen points that she was leading by in an internal poll released by the Giffords campaign last week.
I was given some grief for not writing about it. I love it when I get grief for not writing about certain things, like there's some sort of fatwa that says I can only write about CD 8 or something.
I didn't avoid writing about the poll because I am disappointed in the results (I'm not), but more because I am having a great deal of trouble wrapping my head around the Republican spin on this one:

The Greenberg poll showing her 19 points ahead can be disregarded, since they are a Democratic firm employed by the Giffords campaign.

Anything Carol Zimmerman says can be disregarded because she has been active in Democratic politics for years.

Oh, the drop in numbers between these two bogus polls needs to be taken as Gospel truth and shows that Randy Graf is set to win this race against the out-of-touch trotskyite amnesty queen Giffords (I'm channelling them here).

An interesting number that they are not writing about is that the Greenberg poll showed Graf at 35% and the Zimmerman poll shows Graf at 35.7%. The Greenberg poll memo didn't give numbers to three significant figures, but it would be hard to say that people are moving over to Graf in droves.
Another number that some Graf supporters are pointing to is that 45.8% chose immigration as the number one issue. They are making a mistake if they think that this means that 45.8% agree with Graf's position on the issue. I could walk into Centro Digna on South Sixth and I would find that 100% believe that immigration is the number one issue, but I would also find zero people who support Graf's position on the issue. A silly example, maybe, but you see my point. I have talked to many voters who are very concerned about the issue, who aren't necesarilly for "amnesty," but who are turned off by what they consider Graf's extreme rhetoric on the issue.
We'll see if this represents any sort of true movement away from Giffords, or merely a normalizing of the numbers after she had gotten good press after her primary victory. Some of the other numbers in both polls, such as the numbers of Republicans planning on voting for Giffords, Graf's poor numbers in the rural areas, and Graf's relatively high disapproval ratings, show that Graf doesn't have an awful lot of room to move up.|W|P|115912302750258047|W|P|More Polling Numbers|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/24/2006 12:24:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|You pretty much sum it up neatly ... Graf's numbers between the two polls don't change, and they don't give much reason for thinking they are going to.9/24/2006 12:33:00 PM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|WOW, Tedski. People give you grief for NOT writing about something?

Sounds like you've become important, you know, responsibility and stuff like that.

Us smaller bloggers are watching Cincinnati and Pittsburgh.9/24/2006 01:00:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Fatwa, that was funny.

I hear there is a poll coming out in the Tucson Weekly this or next week. Of course if it shows Randy doing better than within 13% I guess it won’t count because it is a Republican pollster.9/24/2006 08:44:00 PM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|Early polls mean very little...just ask Patty Weiss!

Name ID coming out of the primary is affecting these numbers. Graf got beaten up daily by Huffman on the tube and didn't win the convincing victory Gabby did. Gabby was getting some negatives thrown at her by Patty, too, but Patty didn't have the money to mount a wholesale effort a la Huffman.

If Republicans start to grudgingly return to Graf because they fear the loss of the House, these numbers will tighten. I also think that polls don't adequately measure Graf's support in border areas and (yes, I'll say it again!) the LD26 conservative uprising that took out Toni Hellon scares me!

Giffords is running a smart campaign on the ground and is sounding the themes that will get the independents to break to her, especially when she goes after the blundering, corrupt Republican leadership in Washington. She'll need them and she'll also have to hope that a goodly number of Republicans view Graf the way they did Matt Salmon in the 2002 gubernatorial race.

I hope to hear her start painting a vivid picture of what "Randy Graf's Arizona" would look like and let that stark reality sink in for those who care about public education, environmental protection, sound fiscal policy and true health care reform! Gabby should be doing that NOW before Randy's numbers being to creep up...because they will!9/24/2006 08:17:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|There has been a lot of piling on Senator George Allen. Poor guy.
It all started with his "macaca" comment that confirmed suspicions in some people's minds about Allen's racial views. But what if we were all wrong about this?
What if he meant to say "machaca"?
I realize that this would be the eight or ninth reason that his campaign would give, but this should be explored. Some enterprising reporter should ask Allen about any possible Hispanic background. No, wait, that would be "casting aspersions," right? Not that being Hispanic is bad or anything, but saying someone is Hispanic is insulting. Got it?|W|P|115911171151100824|W|P|In Retrospect...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/24/2006 09:30:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|I guess you do not want to discuss that Gabby slipped 6% in the polls.9/24/2006 10:18:00 AM|W|P|Sonoran Sam|W|P|Factor out the undecideds, and Giffords would get about 55 percent of the vote.

I think she'd be satisfied with that in November.9/24/2006 12:21:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|I think about every Giffords supporter who posts on these boards (AZCW, TDB, A8, BFA) noted they thought 19% was too much.

12.5 or 13% sounds more correct, maybe even a little on the low side. Also, it's not just about the current spread, but how likel each candidate is to add to their numbers. The support for Graf among uncommitted I's and R's seems pretty weak.

Regardless of the actual distance, Giffords certainls has a big edge in the race right now.9/25/2006 08:53:00 AM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|I am confused. What does Thomas Allen have to do with the post? Am I missing something?9/25/2006 09:30:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Bored-I have no idea...I think that the pop-up politicians thing is a bit hinky today. Why George Allen needs three little suns is beyond me.9/24/2006 07:37:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, my brilliant mind has concieved of a solution to our state's difficulties. It splits the difference between, say, Greg Patterson and Daniel Patterson. It is simple and elegant.
We on the left are concerned about the strain on our resources from unchecked suburban sprawl. The right is concerned about the number of illegal migrants moving in to our communities. Add all this to the fact that homebuilders claim that they need those illegal workers to build all of these new houses.
Here is my solution: one of you on the right propose an immediate two-year moratorium on building new houses, and we'll go along (I can claim this because I am a tribune of the left, right?). I know it isn't as sexy as sheriff's deputies fruitlessly chasing migrants in the desert or building a fence and whatever other Stalag 17 inspired ideas are out there, but it would dry up the demand for illegal labor.
I know this would mean taking on some big time Republican contributors, but that's a small price to play for freedom and a democratic Iraq. Some of my friends on the left think that Republicans don't want to go after the employers because of those contributions and that those employers like being able to hang the sword of deportation over the heads of exploited illegal workers, but that is just cynicism. Every last politician using the immigration issue is not appealing to racism, in fact they care about the illegal migrants. That's why they call them all those nasty names and talk about being at war with them. They only want to help, I am here to offer them a chance.
But, alas, there is a tendency among our political leadership not to recognize my perspicacity. I guess that is just a cross I have to bear.|W|P|115911007891759843|W|P|A Modest Proposal, with Appologies to Jonathan Swift|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/24/2006 09:37:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Ted,

How about implementing a verification system so that employers could confirm employment eligibility with certainty. Then market forces would compel the builders to pay workers a livable wage. Maybe high schools could even develop more vocational programs so students would have a reason to not drop out. If there was a decent job awaiting them as a direct result of what they learned in school they might be more motivated.

No, wouldn’t work. Makes too much sense.9/24/2006 10:09:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Yeah, I know...makes too much sense. Kind of sounds like a legislative candidate I knew once.9/24/2006 11:34:00 AM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Sensible policy is for those countries with sensible people.

One day there may be such a country but until then...9/23/2006 08:44:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|There was a bit of gloating in the last post from Phx Kid about the DCCC pulling out of the CD 8 race, as if the D-Trip's reasons were the same as those of the NRCC.
I was thinking of channelling the lame excuses from Randy Graf supporters on this one and making an implausible allegation that Patty Weiss supporters like Steve Emerine and Paul Eckerstrom manipulated the DCCC into abandoning the race in a sour grapes fit of pique, but I realized that that still doesn't sound as silly as the story that a nefarious Click-Kolbe axis is telling the NRCC what to do.|W|P|115906995178717472|W|P|DCCC Pulls Out Too|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/23/2006 09:13:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Either the DCCC decided that Gabby has it sown up or that she cannot win. Doesn’t matter because it is a net plus for Graf. The knock on Graf is that he is extreme but that song is getting old.

My guess is that some independent groups will enter the ad space in the last week or two and expose Gabby’s true record on the issues. This little piece from the end of the primary would be pretty easy to rework for the general since Giffords now has a “tough on the border” commercial.9/23/2006 07:42:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Ron Drake has finally spoken up! Coming off of his primary victory over Joe Sweeney and his bucket of wheat paste, he has taken to accusing Raúl Grijalva of insulting police, fire fighters and 9-11 victims. Oh, yeah, apparently he is against civilization too.
I thought we hadn't heard much from Drake because he was rehearsing to be in Gene Ruley's band. Not so.
The thing that has Drake raising a stink is H. Res. 994, which he characterizes as a resolution supporting 9-11 victims. This is from Drake's press release:

"This is a slap in the face to all U.S. military personnel, fire and police personnel, also every man, woman and child who have died by the hands of terrorists," said Ron Drake. "This is one of the many reasons Raúl Grijalva must not be allowed to continue representing people who live in a civilized environment. He is out of touch with reality. When a congressman votes against the very men and women who keep him and his family safe, he no longer deserves the right to be in office."

Harsh words, all together too theatrical.
What Drake fails to say is that the resolution contained other language that didn't have much to do with supporting victims and first responders:

Whereas Congress passed, and the President signed, numerous laws to assist victims, combat the forces of terrorism, protect the Homeland and support the members of the Armed Forces who defend American interests at home and abroad, including the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and its 2006 reauthorization, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004;
Whereas the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress passed the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, the SAFE Port Act of 2006, and the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006;

This language was put into the resolution as a cynical election year ploy: if Democrats voted against it, they hate the victims; if they voted for it, then the president has "bipartisan" support for his policies. I'm wondering why they didn't slip in drilling in ANWR or Social Security privatization.
Grijalva and 21 other members of congress, including Republican Ron Paul, voted against the resolution. Good for them to stand up against this adminstration's cynical politics. Of course, it gave people who don't have much else to run on a free cheap-shot press release.|W|P|115902434020577580|W|P|The Mallard Speaks!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/23/2006 08:23:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|I guess the Republicans were not the only ones to abandon their candidate in CD 8.9/23/2006 07:02:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I've been mentioned over at Politico Mafioso now. I am such an important figure in Arizona politics that I'm worth mentioning.
Apparently, I've been demonizing that poor, innocent, unable-to-speak-up-for-himself, never-meant-any-harm-to-anyone whelp, Randy Graf.
The main thrust of the post is that the RNCC is being whimpy for not standing up for Graf. That has been the thrust of many replies on this blog as well. I can see why Graf's supporters would be ticked about this. It is an open seat currently held by a Republican, why abandon it?
But, they make the same mistake I see many of Graf's supporters doing when they evaluate this race: they say that a poll realeased by that "liberal" Gabrielle Giffords (two and a half weeks ago, she was too conservative, right?) somehow caused the RNCC to drop its active support of Graf.
The RNCC has its own polling, no doubt, and any evaluation of this race would be based on that rather than a three page memo released by a Democratic campaign. Something is leading them to believe that Graf is not worth throwing money at.
I'm also hearing the cannard that Jim Kolbe and Jim Click somehow are manipulating the RNCC. If the fellas at the RNCC had numbers that showed that Graf was within striking distance or had room to turn this around, they really wouldn't care what some car dealer and a lame duck congressman thought. Click is a Republican hard-core, I doubt that he would "order" the RNCC to hand the seat to a Democrat that he probably has little use for.
This isn't to say that Graf can't win this. The DCCC is still taking this race seriously for that very reason. Graf is just going to have to do this without the RNCC until he can prove to him that he can win. However, his winning or losing is not based on whether the national party is throwing money at him. This is a lesson that many past Democratic candidates in the district had to learn too.
Oh yeah, and they all whined that they could win if only the national party threw money at them too.|W|P|115902225406912081|W|P|RNCC Fallout|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/23/2006 08:26:00 AM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|I think people who make much of both the national parties pulling their ad buys at this point in the game forget that those decisions in any district are based on current numbers. Should those numbers tighten, both parties will make late ad buys. They are being smart with their money and devoting it at this time to races that are closer in other parts of the country.

As a Giffords backer, I am still nervous as hell for several reasons:

1. Graf's strength in the areas where border issues are of paramount interest is hard to gauge using conventional polling techniques.

2. Northwest Pima County conservatives are energized after their primary victories, which makes LD26 and its environs fertile ground for Graf, too.

3. Green Valley is a high turnout area and also Graf's home base.

4. The gay marriage ballot issue motivates Graf voters to get to the polls.

5. Negative attacks on Giffords from Graf and indie groups like the NRA, National Right to Life and the Minutemen will soon begin and will cut into her lead.

Is it just me, or are too many political observers wrongly convinced that this race is all but over? I think you cede ground to an opponent when you underestimate or denigrate them, not to say that is what you are doing, Ted, but one does pick up on that theme in the press and on the blogs.

Graf has been hitting hard on issues that get people to the polls since his career began and he can be articulate, persuasive and relentlessly "on message." I am glad that it doesn't look like Giffords is taking anything for granted, but it strikes me that some of her backers are.9/23/2006 11:18:00 AM|W|P|Dogma|W|P|Folks at the RNCC are a shrewd bunch. Local Repugs can whine all they like, but the fact is plain that the RNCC knows a loser when they see one!

If Republicans weren’t being challenged so effectively across the country, they would likely have given at least some support even to a nut like Graf. But that’s not the reality this election cycle. With so many holes in the dike to fill and the majority in the House on the line, they cannot afford to waste resources on Graf.

Rex is also right that it would be a tragic mistake for Dems to let up in this campaign.9/23/2006 11:35:00 AM|W|P|Michael|W|P|Rex is absolutely right in his concern about this race. This is NOT a cakewalk for Gabby as many are implying.

That said, I know her campaign is not resting on their laurels. They have their daily fundraising goals and as near as I can tell, they're meeting it. I haven't seen Graf go on the air yet, but once he does, the polling will tighten considerably and the RNCC may be back.

With more than a month to go, this is still anyone's game.9/23/2006 12:24:00 PM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|Rex, as a fellow Giffords supporter, I would describe my position as "cautious optimism" and concur with your concerns.

There are some real unknowns. Folks seem remarkably unimpressed with something that I find extraordinary, which is that the RNCC dropped six figure sums in a massive effort to defeat Graf, AND THEY LOST.

I have to ask "What beat them?!"

Sure, a pathetic Huffman might be the answer. But maybe it was something about Graf.

If so, then I assert it has only gained strength. Been watching TV? No way in hell has Graf gotten weaker in the last week.

His ads have started running. Saw one this morning. It was a positive ad, no mention of opponents.

Well, maybe Graf's win 9/12 is just sending a lamb to the slaughter, and things really are that simple and why should RNCC waste money?

Then again.........9/23/2006 05:32:00 PM|W|P|NetrootsDemocrat|W|P|Graf's statements on Medicare is perhaps the overriding reason he's unelectable in a district that contains the sheer amount of retirees that AZ-08 does (Green Valley, Oro Valley, etc.).9/22/2006 01:50:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Terry Goddard's campaign has delivered a complaint to Todd Lang of the Clean Elections Commission alleging that Bill Montgomery's campaign illegally spent $73,000 that were supposed to be spent for the primary on a television ad to be run afterward. It may seem nit-picky, but he did sign a Clean Elections contract, and such legal niceties are an important part of the job he wants us to hire him to do.
But, here is the fun part. The complaint includes an incident report filed by a Town of Gilbert employee. Let me just quote the incident report:

On the above date and time, I discovered a truck full of film equipment, a film crew and a group of Hispanic men in the east parking lot of Freestone Park. I asked the director and camera operator if they had a permit. The gentlemen said, "We are with the Mayor of the Town of Gilbert, he is on his way." At any rate, the gentlemen did not have a permit and when asked, did not know the name of Mayor Steve Berman. I then asked the gentlemen what was the name of their organization. The director said "I don't know, we are all with separate companies." I asked the gentlemen not to unload anything until the Mayor got there. I then met Bill Montgomery, who had arrived as I was speaking with the film crew. Mr. Montgomery informed me that he was the Republican candidate for Attorney General and that the crew was there to film a commercial for him. Mayor Steve Berman arrived at 0910. Meanwhile, the camera operator informed me that the commercial is about illegal immigration, the groups of Hispanic men are illegal immigrants and that they were being paid for their services. Also, a Town of Gilbert Police car was brought to the scene as a prop to make it appear that illegal immigrants were being arrested. Mayor Berman left the scene approximately between 0930 and 1000. Due to their being tied-up filming the commercial, I was unable to get the names of the director and camera operator.

Wait a second...lets read that again:

Meanwhile, the camera operator informed me that the commercial is about illegal immigration, the groups of Hispanic men are illegal immigrants and that they were being paid for their services.

Montgomery was hiring illegal immigrants? What, there weren't Native Born 'Merkins that could do that job? I know, he couldn't afford SAG scale with the piddly ammount of Clean Elections money he was illegally spending. That's right, I can see the Republican spin now: it's the fault of organized labor.
Being a Clean Elections complaint, the filing only deals with the problem of Montgomery using state money to finance an illegal activity. It goes without saying that he was in violation of federal law. Well, that's not a big deal, it's not like he wants to be the state's top law enforcement official or anything.
NB - I put the whole report up because the whole thing sounded a bit amateurish. What the heck was Mayor Berman doing in this whole thing, and why was public property (the police car) allowed to be a prop in a political ad?|W|P|115896046416575031|W|P|Montgomery's Solution to Illegal Workers: Hire Them|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/22/2006 04:04:00 PM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|I'll bet they'll say the camera operator misspoke or LaMotte misheard and the men were just playing illegal immigrants.

But what's Berman's excuse for being in a commercial in his own city w/o a permit?

Funny!9/22/2006 04:50:00 PM|W|P|Brilliant and Embittered|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.9/22/2006 09:30:00 PM|W|P|OVD|W|P|Without passing judgment on whether your post is factually correct or not I would like to note that these are the people who implied that Don Goldwater was not very bright.9/23/2006 02:07:00 AM|W|P|Sandy in Prescott|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.10/19/2006 12:55:00 AM|W|P|Men In Black|W|P|Given the Polygamy issue and Child Brides in Arizona over the past 6 decades, I would rather put my faith in a New Broom that Sweeps Clean!

As the FOR KIDS SAKE Rep. Napolitano & Goddard are known quanities, that have both been near useless. If I have to deal with Goddard for another 4 years I will scream and with it release dozens of recorded phone conversations, hundreds of emails. ITS TIME FOR A CHANGE! Polygamy will only become a bigger story, is it the legacy Arizonian's want as an image for their state?9/22/2006 09:44:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A picture taken at the "Clinton Global Initiative" Conference. Have at it...
|W|P|115894360995033188|W|P|R-Cubed's First Caption Contest|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/22/2006 10:05:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|"You can't see what she's doing behind this podium .... but it's making me REAL happy!9/22/2006 11:14:00 AM|W|P|BrittF|W|P|Mr. President, you really know how to dive into...9/22/2006 01:03:00 PM|W|P|SonoranDesertRat|W|P|"Well, y'all, in a pinch, I'D HIT IT!"9/22/2006 01:17:00 PM|W|P|Mister T in AZ|W|P|Current First Lady Laura Bush and former President Bill Clinton wave to audience members at the Clinton Global Initiative Conference.

"Hey, folks! You'll NEVER guess where George and Hillary are right now!"9/22/2006 10:59:00 PM|W|P|CopperCid|W|P|Laura Bush:

"Yeah, I'd do him, too."9/22/2006 11:31:00 PM|W|P|toc001|W|P|I read him a story at 9 and he's asleep by 9:05. Just wait by the back door ...9/22/2006 07:30:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Arizona Daily Star gave a thorn to the Democratic Party for revealing the link to Randy Graf on David Duke's website. They have a point that any bozo can link to a website, and that doesn't necessarily mean that any support is reciprocated.
But, take a look at David Duke's website again. The only candidate featured is Randy Graf. Now, ask yourself what I asked on here yesterday, what is it about Graf that gets Duke so excited? It isn't because Graf is a Republican, since Duke doesn't have nice things to say about George Bush.
Could it have anything to do with things like Graf's opposition to the cross burning bill two years ago? Or Graf's continuing association with racists within the anti-immigration movement? No, I'm sure it's just because Duke is an avid golfer or something.
NB - Graf's site carries a press release called "Graf Recieves Wide Support From National GOP." How is that going?|W|P|115893635637567333|W|P|Is That a Thorn, or a Prick?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/22/2006 08:06:00 AM|W|P|Chris|W|P|Here is a story about which web site likes Gabby. Why is she at the top of their list?9/22/2006 08:54:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I dunno Chris, probably for the same reason you keep posting the same comment on here over and over again.9/22/2006 09:10:00 AM|W|P|Chris|W|P|Everyone keeps saying the same garbage about Graf and David Duke.9/22/2006 01:43:00 PM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|I read the THORN language in the Star and find myself in fundamental agreement regarding the link itself and what it might mean. Websites have as much control over who links to them as we have control over what we get in the mail each day.

There probably is a rock to turn over here. Tedski gave it a little nudge. I'm not touching the thing, at least not yet.9/22/2006 07:09:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Terry Goddardscored a victory in court yesterday against Western Union, who attempted to block Goddard's investigations into money transfers by coyotes.
Goddard has an ongoing operation to investigate both smuggling and the crimes that coyotes commit against the migrants that they smuggle. Because of the large ammounts of money that coyotes and the people that hire them transfer using services like Western Union, they leave footprints that law enforcement can use in its investigations. Such a tool can also be used to investigate terrorism.
The program is being done under the auspices of a court and is carefully stuctured so as not to inconvienience legitimate users of Western Union. However, Western Union decided to challenge the program on privacy grounds. This would have been easier to buy had they not already been sharing data with consumer credit and marketing agencies.
The fact is that millions of dollars pass through services like Western Union from sumuggling operations. With every transaction, they make a cut. If smugglers know that they are being watched, Western Union loses business. So, their profits are more important than finding the people that exploit and commit crimes against migrants.
With this sort of stand against border and homeland security, does Western Union still advertise on Lou Dobbs? Do people on their board give to "tough on immigration" Republicans?|W|P|115893539784904536|W|P|Goddard Scores Victory Over Western Union|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/21/2006 03:58:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|According the word out here in Blogistan, the NRCC has pulled its ads in CD 8. I'll try to do a bit more to run this one down. Apparently, all the ads have been cancelled except for the ones on KVOA because its too late to cancel those.
The only downside is that this means they have more money to spend on J. D. Hayworth.|W|P|115887963603860218|W|P|¿El NRCC Dice “No Mas”?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/21/2006 05:39:00 PM|W|P|TucsonMark|W|P|GOP may have given up on Kolbe seat

Associated PressSept. 21, 2006 04:40 PM

WASHINGTON - Republicans signaled retreat Thursday in their battle to retain an Arizona congressional seat, dropping plans for nonstop television advertisements through Election Day on behalf of GOP contender Randy Graf.

Officials in both parties said private polls show Graf trailing Democratic rival Gabrielle Giffords in the race to replace Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe, who is retiring after 22 years in Congress.

The maneuvering shows the intense district-by-district competition for control of the House, with the two parties adjusting tactics frequently to take changing circumstances into account. Democrats must gain 15 seats this fall to capture control of the 435-member House. advertisement

In many circumstances, a decision to turn back reserved advertising time suggests a party has concluded it cannot prevail and prefers to spend its money on a more winnable race. In this case, the GOP advertising is expected to end on Oct. 3, rather than continue throughout the campaign.

Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, declined to discuss the organization's advertising plans. "They haven't won anything until Nov. 7," he said.

R.T. Gregg, a spokesman for Graf, said he did not know about the developments. He noted that by law, the GOP advertising was undertaken independent of the candidate.

Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said, "There was a reason that Jim Kolbe wouldn't endorse Randy Graf, and that's why national Republicans are walking away."

Kolbe declined to endorse Graf after his primary victory this month, citing "profound and fundamental differences" on several issues.

The decision came on a day party leaders clashed sharply over Graf.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic campaign committee, sent a letter to his Republican counterpart saying that Graf had the support of white supremacist David Duke. He challenged Rep. Tom Reynolds of New York, chairman of the GOP campaign committee, to stop advertising immediately on Graf's behalf, adding, "Candidates tied to white supremacists are not right for Arizona and they are certainly not right for America."

In a scathing reply, Reynolds accused Emanuel of hypocrisy. Reynolds wrote that the Democrat had tried to recruit a candidate in Pennsylvania last year who "used the n-word with regard to his employees, a controversy that led to a local chapter of the NAACP calling for his removal from office. Your noble response was to stress that 'there are two sides to every story,' " Reynolds wrote.

Graf defeated four opponents to win the primary on Sept. 12, running as the most conservative of the group. Immigration was a key topic in the race, with Graf emphasizing his determination to secure the border with Mexico and crack down on illegal immigrants.

Both parties sought to influence the outcome of the primary.

In an unusual move, the NRCC ran ads supporting Steven Huffman, and strategists at the time said they believed Graf could not be elected in the district.

Democrats, calculating that Graf would be easier to defeat in November, ran commercials attacking Huffman.9/21/2006 07:03:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|They have bigger problems right now in Arizona:

it indicates that 23% of Republicans in Arizona plan to vote for the Governor. Since it would take another 23% of the GOP voters to cancel them out, the effect of that particular number is that Munsil in effect might as well have almost half of his base sitting at home on election day.

The poll also shows Pederson within five.

The crosstabs on that poll do look a little odd to me though-- in both the Senate and Governor's races they show the Democrat doing better in metropolitan Phoenix than in Tucson, in fact in the Senate race they show Pederson up two in metropolitan Phoenix with Kyl up sixteen in Tucson. Sounds like some sampling error to me.9/21/2006 09:52:00 PM|W|P|Randall Holdridge|W|P|The NRCC decision, if true, is particularly embarrassing to Graf. On Monday on return from high-level palavering with GOP House leaders in D.C., he talked about what a great rapport he established and said they'd pledged another $100K to his campaign. Oops.9/21/2006 09:56:00 PM|W|P|Randall Holdridge|W|P|The quote from DCCC spokesman Bill Burton is quite the pregnant enigma. Do you suppose it's really as threatening as it sounds, or simply a casual remark?9/22/2006 06:22:00 AM|W|P|TucsonMark|W|P|Yet another story on this from the Arizona Republic.

GOP cancels $1 mil in Graf ad support

Jon KammanThe Arizona RepublicSept. 22, 2006 12:00 AM

The Republican Party canceled about $1 million in advertising support for Randy Graf, a blow to his chances of winning the congressional race in southern Arizona.

Graf, a conservative who has campaigned mainly on a platform of zero tolerance for illegal immigration, vowed through campaign manager R.T. Gregg to go it alone if necessary in the district once considered one of the most competitive in the nation.

The ad pullback means Republicans recognize Graf's Democratic opponent, Gabrielle Giffords, has "broad bipartisan support" across the district, which runs from Tucson to the Mexican border, a Giffords spokesman said.

Jim Kolbe, who is retiring, has represented the 8th Congressional District for 22 years.

An independent political observer said yanking advertising support is "a very powerful signal."

"It can mean either they're pulling out because it's hopeless, or they think he's got it in the bag," said Gary Jacobson, professor of political science at the University of California-San Diego.

Every indication is that the party is in full retreat, Jacobson said.

Gregg said Thursday that he had no specifics on what the National Republican Congressional Committee was doing, "but I don't care."

"It doesn't matter. Our game plan is set, and we're well on our way to raising the $1 million we need to win this race," Gregg said.

He said Republican leaders and the party's rank-and-file have contributed generously to Graf since the Sept. 12 primary. Also, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., will host a fund-raiser for Graf in Washington, D.C., next week, Gregg said.

In a statement, U.S. Rep. Tom Reynolds of New York, chairman of the GOP committee, said ads now running will continue through Oct. 3, but plans beyond that are part of confidential campaign strategy.

Democrats said the date simply reflects that two weeks of notice is required for cancellation of media buys.

Republicans had reserved about $1.4 million worth of broadcast time to boost chances of keeping the seat in GOP hands.

The party spent $250,000 in the primary trying to derail a Graf victory and had booked most of the remainder for closer to the Nov. 7 general election.

Democrats had budgeted about $1.7 million for the race. Both parties will now be able to redirect most or all of the money to other races.

A poll released by Giffords on Wednesday suggested she holds a 19 percentage-point advantage over Graf, with a 4-point margin of error. Gregg dismissed the poll as meaningless because the Giffords camp paid for it.

Giffords also has shown more fund-raising prowess than Graf. The $1.2 million she raised before the primary was more than twice as much as Graf took in, and she entered the general election campaign with $300,000, about three times as much as Graf.

"She's in good shape, and if the Republicans are pulling out a million bucks, he's not," Jacobson said.9/21/2006 12:19:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Arizona Daily Star ran a piece this morning on David Duke's endorsement of Randy Graf and the fact that he featured a link to Graf on his website.
Of course, this led to protests by Republicans that just because Duke likes Graf doesn't make Graf a racist. True 'dat, but I'd like to know what it is exactly that they think it is about Graf that is so appealing to a self-proclaimed "white nationalist" like Duke.
The other thing that has been fun is reading the tortuous arguments in the Star's comment section attempting to link Gabrielle Giffords to college Hispanic organization MEChA. I'm not sure what these people think goes on at most campus MEChA meetings (most chapters are not nearly as radical as their national website would have you believe), or if they've even set foot on a college campus for that matter. Let's assume that MEChA is the hotbed of Xicano (yes, with an "x," makes it more radical) revolution that they say it is. It is hard to imagine Giffords shouting "Viva la Raza" and ditching her "colonized" name for Xocoyotl.
Despite the protestations of Graf's campaign, he has had connections to the dirty underside of the anti-immigrant movement. Yes, there are plenty of level headed non-racist people (including Hispanics in my own family) who have some serious problems with illegal immigration and policies that they believe encourage it. However, Graf has refused to dissavow some disturbing relationships he has had with racists within the anti-immigration community.
The most distubing one is with the perenial anti-immigrant activist John Tanton, who has been renowned for his anti-Hispanic and anti-Catholic rants. His racism led to mainstream leaders such as Walter Cronkite and Linda Chavez to disassociate themselves from his group FAIR years ago. FAIR contributed to the Graf supported PAN committee in 2004, and they have also raised funds for Graf's current campaign.
Graf served as a "senior advisor" to the PAN committee and one of his fellow advisors was Dr. Virginia Abernethy, who you may remember got into hot water when she proclaimed that she was not a "white supremacist" but only a "white separatist," as if that made it better. Protests abounded when her appointment was revealed, even FAIR condemned it. No word from Graf at the time or since as near as I can tell.
Graf's campaign also seems to have had connections to local racist hot heads like professional candidate Joe Sweeney, who posted numerous "Democrats and Independents for Graf" signs back in 2004, and flag burner Roy Warden. With "traditional Democrat" Bill Johnson out of the race, Russ Dove (a former "border correspondent" for Graf's old campaign manager Steve Aiken) will no doubt be rearing his head soon at Graf's events.
Graf's campaign manager can deride people as "racist crazies" all he wants, but until Graf personally and unequivocally distances himself from these people, those of us on this side of politics will continue to question him about it.|W|P|115886733760827450|W|P|Early Salvos in the CD 8 Race|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/21/2006 01:27:00 PM|W|P|OVD|W|P|Gabby seems to have her own extremist web site backing her. I didn’t know she supported infanticide.9/21/2006 08:31:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Rumor Mill had it that Ted Downing was talking up a run against Supervisor Richard Elías in the next election. The rumor went that Downing was angry that Elías supported Paula Aboud against him for the State Senate.
Juicy enough rumor, 'cept for one tiny problem. Downing lives in Supervisor District 3, which is represented by Sharon Bronson.
Say, who did Bronson support in that race?|W|P|115885414279168349|W|P|Because It's Never Too Early: Putting the First '08 Rumor to Rest|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/21/2006 12:44:00 PM|W|P|SonoranDesertRat|W|P|Here's one vote for "good riddance, Mr. Downing." I'd love to see him move and run against Elias; Ted would get smacked around in that one like a pinata.9/20/2006 12:17:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research has released a poll showing Gabrielle Giffords at 52%, Randy Graf at 35% with Independent Jay Quick and Libertarian Dave Nolan each getting 5%.
Giffords is also at 78% name id, and has a 51% approval rating and a 18% disapproval rating. Graf, on the other hand, is better known at 82%, but disapproved by 39% of district voters, with only a 32% approval rating. Such ratings for Graf are by no means insurmountable, but it means that he starts with an electorate a little less likely to hear him out.
Of course, we shouldn't rest on our laurels. What I've seen of Giffords's campaign over the last week doesn't show they are. But, guldernit, this is nice.|W|P|115878065980736948|W|P|Ah, the First CD 8 Poll of the Season|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/20/2006 01:46:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Nice neutral group there Ted. From the web site of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner “We give Democrats the edge over their opponents, taking on and winning the toughest races.”

Toughest races? I thought this was going to be a pushover.

Are you sure you are not confusing a push poll with a survey done by a reputable firm?9/20/2006 02:02:00 PM|W|P|NetrootsDemocrat|W|P|The whole world already knows this is a pickup for the Dems.9/20/2006 02:16:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|If this is such a slam-dunk why is Gabby run an ad about how tough on the border she is?

Why doesn’t she just save her money, I mean it’s already a done deal.9/20/2006 03:15:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Geez, Kid, when did you start using George Tuttle's definition of "push poll" meaning, "poll with results I don't like"?

They are a Democratic firm, but their business would dry up darned quick if they made a habit of reporting bad data, 'specially since campaigns depend on it for devising strategy.9/20/2006 03:39:00 PM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|PK,

Invite you to consider that the Giffords campaign is playing for keeps and taking nothing for granted. A poll could come out showing every creature with feet voting for Giffords, and they will still run ads, still walk neighborhoods, still mail mailings, and not rest until 11/8.

Not only will they not let up, they will probably raise the bar.

60%?9/20/2006 08:37:00 PM|W|P|Framer|W|P|You could also apply the Roger hypothosis that it is better not to publish your own best case poll numbers (as these most likely are) when it is possible or even probable that the numbers will shrink, giving Graf the appearence of closing, even if it is just the numbers evening out.

Grafs next 15% would be a lot easier to grab than Gabby's next 5%.

Were I running Gabby's campaign I might have kept those numbers close until i saw how they compared to another third party poll, especially if she thought her lead was actually that high.

However, leaking to bloggers is always OK.9/20/2006 09:53:00 PM|W|P|George Tuttle|W|P|Ted-When the poll omits candidates who are on the ballot (now why would they do that??) then it is a push poll.9/20/2006 11:57:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|tedski,

“since campaigns depend on it for devising strategy.” I guess Greenberg Quinlan Rosner told Gabby that securing the border and stopping illegal immigration are big issues with voters. Funny since the left has been saying that those are not real issues and Randy is wrong to discuss them.

x4mr,

I am confused. I keep hearing that Gabby has this race sown up and Graf can’t win. I know Gabby is working hard and running a great campaign. Why? If Graf is such a push over why does Gabby need to work so hard? Very strange.9/21/2006 06:12:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Phx Kid,

I imagine you are being satirical, but to address both points:

1. I don't believe anyone has said the border isn't an issue at all, they've said:

a. It's not the number one issue, and b. Even on the issue itself, Graf's stance is not a winner with the majority of the exlectorate.

There is no question the border is AN important issue, but not to the exclusion of everything else, as many Graf supporters would like to push.

2. Don't be silly -- even if you think you are way ahead you don't take anything for granted. When you do, you end up in a position such as the Eagles were last weekend against the Giants, blowing a big lead and losing in the end.

Regardless of what the polls show, you work just as hard as if you were 5 points behind.9/21/2006 06:18:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.9/21/2006 06:20:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|George,

There are legitimate reasons to run a poll without mentioning all the candidates. If you are convinced only two or three are valid contenders, you might want to remove the rest as "statistical noise". That doesn't make it a push poll.

A push poll, as you have been told before, is when you purposely phrase your polling questions to "push" the respondent in favor of one of the options you are providing, at the expense of another option you are providing. An attempt is made to leave a negative impression about one of the candidates rather than remaining neutral.

In the poll you have in mind, no impression (negative or positive) was left regarding your favored candidate (Latas). Ergo it wasn't a push poll.

Just as the administration can keep trying to define Iraq as doing well even though it's not, you are free to keep mis-interpreting the meaning of what a "push poll" is. You and the administration will continue to be wrong on the respective matters, but hey, what the hell.9/21/2006 06:29:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|As to the poll results themselves ...

I don't find the results overly surprising, actually. What I find interesting is they announced the results at all.

In the run-up to the primary over the summer, I kept hearing people claim if Giffords' internal polling _really_ showed good numbers they would announce them. It turns out their polling over the summer showed perfectly good results, but they chose to keep the data to themselves for whatever reason.

This time they have decided to announce the results instead. Why the difference?

My best guess is they feel they have legit data (I.e., data likely to be at least roughly confirmed by any Rep. polling) and by announcing it now they are trying to minimize any fundraising momentum by Graf or the amount of money spent on the race by Republican organizations (NRC, etc.) -- i.e., with such a wide lead, those folks may opt to place their money elsewhere, in more competitive races.

As to the border “It’s not the number one issue.” Gabby’s ad could have fooled me. It looks like a number one issue after viewing her TV spot.

“Graf’s stance is not a winner.” Gabby’s ad says she would support “Tough new border security.” I would love to hear more details about how her plan differs from Graf’s because from the ad her position sure sounds a lot like Graf’s.9/21/2006 07:20:00 AM|W|P|Framer|W|P|I'm starting to believe that releasing this poll was Gabby's first big mistake.

If the margin is wide enough to cut funding for Graf, it will also effect Gabby's fundraising if contributers think the race is well in hand. Graf can run effectively with less. I'm not sure Gabby can.

I was able to see the methodology of the Star poll, the methodology of this poll was omitted. I would believe that the real number is far closer to the Star totals at this point for that reason alone.

If that is the case, Graf has already made up almost 10 points since last week according to Gabby's poll. You think that might bring in some dollars to Graf if reported that way?

It was a mistake for Patty to release her selected poll information and it will probably prove to be so for Gabby as well.9/21/2006 08:39:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|I think her get tough on the border ad was her first mistake. Just like Huffman she is playing right into Graf’s issue.9/21/2006 08:55:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Framer,

I am missing something ... the Star poll had Giffords up by 10% on Graf prior to the primary. This poll, taken immediately after, shows her up by 19%.

I tend to agree the Star numbers might be closer, although it could be argued the later numbers of this poll show the effects of cross-over Republian's voting for Giffords, etc. However, I don't see _any_ way to present it as Graf "making up almost 10 points in a week".

Losing almost 10 points in a week, yeah, I can see that.9/21/2006 08:56:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Phx Kid,

Well, it depends ... regardless of whether I think the border is THE issue for this campaign, it's without question AN important issue, and needs to be addressed. Might as well get something out there early rather than late.9/21/2006 09:54:00 AM|W|P|union guy|W|P|Phx Kid,

I agree that immigration is the issue in this election. That's why Gabby will win handily. Poll after poll shows that Arizonans want practical solutions that are fair to taxpayers, not the build a fence only plan where the government would spend billions of dollars NOT addressing the 12 million people already here. Voters know that the issue is complex and requires real solutions and they know that the build a fence only crowd doesn't have solutions.

Want proof? Goldwater lost. Graf got fewer votes in the 2006 primary than he did in 2004. And those were Republican primaries.

I hope immigration is THE issue in this election. Then the voters can show how out of touch Graf, Goldwater, Hayworth, and Kyl are on this issue.9/21/2006 11:51:00 AM|W|P|Michael|W|P|Slighty off topic, but I just want to say that I think we're fortunate to have this much polling being made publicly available. Seems unusual in a Congressional race to have so many polls being conducted and publicized. I don't remember there being so many polls in the district in 2004 or in other districts in which I've lived around the country prior to that. Probably because it's such a tight and high-profile race, but it's still nice to get these periodic snapshots of the electorate.9/20/2006 06:45:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Jim Nintzel of the Tucson Weekly called me yesterday to tell me that my numbers were based on early incomplete numbers, and that complete results are now posted.
Nintzel loves to find my mistakes. I still like to remind him that he confused me and my brother in "The Skinny" once. This wouldn't have been so bad, 'cept they were making fun of Kathleen Dunbar confusing the two of us.
As far as primary turn out goes, out of the twelve major party primaries that were contested in both 2004 and 2006, there were only three where there was an increase in turnout. Those were the Democratic primary in CD 5, where there was no contest, and both major party primaries in CD 8.
Back in 2004, CD 5 Democratic candidates Ron Maynard and R-Cubed reader Elizabeth Rogers split 16,347 votes. In this primary, Harry Mitchell recieved 20,837 votes for an increase of 27.5% despite the fact that he had no opponent. On the Republican side, turnout dropped from 54,462 votes to 38,271, a 29.7% decrease.
I was wrong about CD 8, there was a slight uptick on the Republican side. 62,725 voters chose between Randy Graf and Jim Kolbe in 2004, and 64,076 voted in this primary, a slight increase of 2.2%. The Democratic increase remains impressive, from 34,486 to 61,409, a 78.1% increase. So many people voted in the CD 8 primary that even silver medalist Patty Weiss managed to get nearly as many votes as CD 1 winner Ellen Simon and got more than every candidate except the unopposed Harry Mitchell and Raúl Grijalva.
What's the lesson here? Well...first lesson for me is to check my math. Twice even.|W|P|115876150382793941|W|P|Darnit, the Facts Get In the Way of a Good Post|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/19/2006 08:20:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, check this out, these are Randy Graf's vote totals:
2004 - 26,686
2006 - 23,949
So wait, Randy Graf got fewer votes, even though he did not have to run against an incumbent?
Well, his percentage didn't change, in fact, it went up slightly (well, one tenth of a percent). But what did go down were the number of people who voted in the Repubican primary. This happened despite the growth in the area over the past few years.
62,725 people voted in the Republican primary in 2004, but only 55,405 people voted in the Republican primary this year. This is a drop of 11%. Contrast this with the Democratic primary, where there was a 55% increase, with 34,486 voters in 2004 and 53,790 in 2006.
So, why the drop? Were people turned off by the negativity of the campaign? Did the lack of strong choices in the Governor's race make it difficult to bring voters out? The Democratic campaign was also hard fought, and no Governor's race existed to bring folks out but, for some reason, there was a large increase.
Whatever the reasons, I don't think it says a lot about the enthusiasm of Republican voters for either their congressional or gubernatorial candidates.
NB - I didn't feel like checking every district, but I checked CD 7. The numbers were also down in the Republican primary and up in the Democratic primary.
CORRECTION - It seems my numbers were based on incomplete results; complete results are now posted. There was a slightly larger showing in this Republican primary after all, and Graf's numbers were up slightly.|W|P|115868015633935667|W|P|CD 8 Number Crunching|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/19/2006 09:32:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Maybe the hideous level of negative campaigning turned off primary voters.

The thing to take away from the CD 8 Republican primary is that the establishment threw everything they had at Graf and he still won. Not bad.9/19/2006 11:00:00 AM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|phx kid:

As I commented on another of Ted's posts, it appears that the crowd who supported Graf two years ago, still support Graf. But he has not shown any indication that he has gained any new support, and without it, I doubt if he can win.9/19/2006 11:24:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Given that the NRCC, Jim Kolbe, Jim Click, Matt Salmon, Tucson Association of Realtors, et all were doing everything they could think of to sink his campaign I think he did pretty well.

But please contact Giffords' campaign and tell her that since Randy only got the same percent as in 2004 that she should not take his campaign seriously because he cannot win.

Randy cannot possibly overcome the advantage of 20,000 more Republicans than Democrats. If fact Gabby should just go on vacation and come back on the first of November.9/19/2006 06:41:00 PM|W|P|GOPinsider|W|P|Many of those 20,000 Republicans in the district will vote for Gabby.

The attacks on her by her primary opponents and public recognition of the fact that she was a Republican until 1999 is to her benefit because it means that many moderate and female Republicans will choose to support her rather than Graf who is extreme evem for the Republican party.9/19/2006 09:15:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Phx Kid, you can dream right?9/20/2006 05:33:00 AM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|Even though I have been a fervent Giffords backer since the start, it would be utter folly for any of us in her camp to doubt that WE start the general election campaign as the underdogs. The dynamic changed abruptly when the race shifted into general election mode. Graf just got back from DC with the blessing of Hastert and Co., this is still a GOP district and they will do all they have to do to hold this seat.

By the way, did anyone notice that Kolbe said last week that he would not endorse Graf "AT THIS TIME?" Did anyone also notice that Graf said he still hoped to meet and speak with Kolbe? Don't bet your paycheck that Kolbe will stay on the sidelines. There will be great pressure on him to be a good soldier, although I am inclined to agree that Graf is not hurt too badly if Kolbe never backs him.

GOPInsider (who, if memory serves, was a Huffman backer during the primary) is correct that Republican women and the dwindling herd of GOP moderates will be targets for the Giffords effort. Both campaigns will also go after independents and all voters in the border counties. I make the latter point because Giffords can't merely split Pima with Graf (as Huffman did) because the votes along the border may well go to Graf.

Democrats are indeed fortunate that their nominee is bright, experienced, blessed with tons of resources and has a savvy ad strategy. It's no wonder that Giffords' first general election ad is on the topic of national security. She knows that voters have to trust Democrats to keep us safe and she is making the accurate point that Republican policies HAVE MADE THIS COUNTRY LESS SAFE.

The decision made by Democrats to nominate Giffords looks smarter every day. But, she is going to have to come from behind to win. This district has been in GOP hands for 22 years, their base is fired up after the conservative coup during the primary, they have the immigration and gay marriage hot buttons to push and they will funnel an incessant flow of money into CD8. We can also expect that the GOP smear machine will soon turn its attention Gabby's way.9/21/2006 07:14:00 AM|W|P|GOPinsider|W|P|Rex is correct in his memory that I was a Huffman supporter in the primary. However, I can say that I and many other registered Republicans who have been longtime Kolbe supporters in the district, will not vote for Graf as he does not represent our beliefs.

Many of us will vote for Gabby, just like many of us voted for Gov. Napolitano in 2002 and will do so again this year.9/19/2006 06:50:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One of the things that is always hard to explain to many of my friends is why I and many other liberals still practice Catholicism. I usually give the glib answer that Roman Catholicism is like baseball. Millions and millions of fans still attend the games and follow every statistic obsessively even though the owners and even the players treat them horribly. A baseball fan will tell you that the game is still beautiful and they try not to get distracted by the men running the sport.
It's not really that simple. There are plenty of things in the church to tick off both liberals and conservatives. A liberal gets mad about the anti-abortion stance, where a conservative gets mad about the anti-death penalty stance. A liberal smirks a little when the Pope lectures George Bush about the Iraq war, where the conservative admires that same Pope wagging his finger at churchmen who practice liberation theology.
One of the things that I took comfort in during the last Papacy was the way that Pope John Paul II reached out to people of other faiths. This sort of ecumenism make the skin of some conservatives crawl (Pat Buchanan and his ilk still complain about the Pope kissing the Qu'ran), but it gave some of us a lot of hope for peace in the world.
It looks like with one speech, Pope Benedict XVI has turned his back on all of that. Not even one speech, but one paragraph in one speech. I went back and read the speech, hoping to see something like "This ignorant guy Manuel Paleologus, who spent his youth as a prisoner of the Turks and whose Empire was about to be swallowed up by an Islamic army so his opinions about Muslims should be taken with a grain of salt, said..." but nothing. In fact, the paragraph seemed to be out of place in a speech about the relationship of faith and reason. Why he would choose now to say such a thing is beyond me, except as a signal to the less tollerant wings of the Church.
Some of us also wonder about some less noticed signals, such as the recent departure of Fr. George Coyne from the Vatican Observatory. Coyne had been very vocal in his support for evolution, where as Benedict has been pushing for "intelligent design." It would suprise some that the church had in recent decades not taken a hard and fast position on the issue. Benedict himself had writings on the subject back when he was still Joseph Ratzinger that seemed to accept evolution, but wanted to make it clear that scientific theories should not crowd God out.
(One friend of mine witnessed an argument between a fundamentalist student and Coyne after a class. Apparently, the fundamentalist didn't realize that Coyne was a priest and knew the Bible as well as he did.)
Coyne is a Jesuit, an order that believes that studying the universe is a way of understanding God. Benedict and some conservatives seem to want to turn their back on this kind of thinking and go back to an earlier time. Given that the last Pope, probably recalling his countryman Nicolaus Copernicus, gave a belated but none-the-less necessary pardon of Galileo Galilei, it makes me wonder how far back he wishes to turn the calendar.|W|P|115867673452955303|W|P|Turning Away from John Paul II's Legacy?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/19/2006 04:43:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|Benedict has to overcome his past though. A lot of non-Catholics (especially Jews) were suspicious of him because of his one time service in the Wehrmacht.

The way he could overcome it would be to aggressively promote tolerance, as John Paul did. By the same token, when he makes a statement that could be perceived as intolerant, it is magnified because of the suspicions that already existed.

It's a little like Mel Gibson. If his recent anti-Semitic remarks had come out of the blue then they probably would have been written off as the ravings of a drunk. But given the suspicions that already existed due to his father and some past episodes, the remarks were magnified into a major scandal.

A better example to follow might be to look at Sen. Byrd of West Virgnia. He was a former member of the Klan but has aggressively fought for civil rights, worked to write legislation to that effect, and hired a lot of Black staffers. Plus, he has expressly renounced the Klan and said that what he did was wrong and that he regrets having done it.9/18/2006 07:37:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Robert Novak comments on The Daily Show Jon Stewart:

[S]omebody mentioned the Jon Stewart program, I’ve never seen that in my life and I will go to my grave never having seen it...I don’t see any reason for it. It’s a comedian, self-righteous comedian taking on airs of grandeur and I really don’t need that.

|W|P|115859046899871706|W|P|He's the Lord of Darkness and Prince of Irony!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/18/2006 10:10:00 AM|W|P|Michael|W|P|Novakula better be careful living in that glass house of his when he's throws all those stones around...9/18/2006 12:55:00 PM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|oh my stars! Thank goodness, I didn't surf over here while eating lunch. I would have lost my appetite.

Hey Tedski, maybe you could substitute another Muppet for the Lord of Darkness instead of subjecting us to that ugly mug. Perhaps the Count? Or Oscar the Grouch?9/18/2006 01:13:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|No...we need the true visage to capture the horror.

It may be uncomfortable, but I feel it is my duty.9/18/2006 01:44:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|You guys are harsh.9/18/2006 03:13:00 PM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|That face is harsh.9/18/2006 08:18:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Can you maybe draw something funny on his head? Like a pair of fluffy bunny ears?9/16/2006 05:59:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The folks over at Sonoran Alliance are convinced that Janet Napolitano is going to get spanked in this election. I realize that as partisan activists, they have to convince themselves of this despite all evidence to the contrary.
They do have some numbers to back up their hypothesis, their argument goes beyond the "everyone that goes to the meetings I do and that think the way I do hates this person as much as I do" habit that activists on both sides fall into. They have some decent reasons to back this up, but I don't think they are thinking about the whole story here.
One thing that they look at is registration numbers. They point to Republicans having 1,003,977 registered voters, whereas the Democrats have 847,490 registered voters. This means that Republicans have increased their margin by 24,737 votes, which dwarfs Napolitano's 2002 winning margin of 11,819. Okay, except that it neglects to account for the 175,529 voters that have registered in other parties, or none at all, since the 2002 election. That's seven times larger than the increase for the Republicans. Do those go to Len Munsil, or to Napolitano? Merely looking at the registration totals doesn't tell you that. Plus, Napolitano demonstrated an ability to attract Republican votes before, and there is nothing to indicate that she has lost that ability.
Purely by voter registration totals, yes, a Republican should win every time. By that token, Tucson should have a Democratic mayor too. This assumes that every Republican agrees with Len Munsil enough to support him. I'm not sure that's the case. For example, the PMA, Munsil's big issue before he got in the governor's race, looks to be losing by margins big enough that tell me that many Republicans aren't even supporting this important part of his agenda.
They also consider that in 2002, there were ideological differences between the primary candidates, and this may have impared Matt Salmon's ability to hold Republican voters together for the general election. Even with some of the goofiness that went on in this primary, this was not really a "factional" primary. There wasn't a candidate energizing moderates that now would be looking at a Democratic alternative. Good point, except one may remember that the moderate was supposed to be John Greene. One of Greene's stated reasons for getting out of the race was because he found that many moderate Republicans in the buisiness community were already supporting Napolitano. Just because they didn't have a candidate in the primary, doesn't necessarilly mean moderates will not be looking seriously at a Democrat in the general election.
But, keep wishing, fellas.|W|P|115845666839246129|W|P|Republicans Thinking Wishfully|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/16/2006 07:26:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Tedski,

You and I must have read different stories. Nowhere did the author state that Napolitano was going to get spanked. In fact if you read carefully it seemed more like a warning to Munsil to get out of Maricopa and visit the border counties and pick up some of Don’s supporters. Or even visit a county fair.

The notion that moderate Republicans were already supporting Janet came from Greene. Consider the source. Hey if Goldwater was able to get his $5 forms in then Greene should have been able to. Maybe someone decided it was too much work to fight for the nomination and was looking for an excuse to get out.

Cute pig.9/17/2006 07:46:00 AM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|Munsil is very articulate, extremely bright and stays on message with great discipline. He will be Janet's equal in a debate. Janet has also been a "triangulator" on taxes, the border and vouchers. In a way, she had to be because of her precarious position as a governor dealing with GOP majorities in both houses of the Legislature, but that can come across in other, less flattering ways in a debate with someone who sticks to his own playbook with rigidity.

I like that Janet has played up the fact that Munsil's experience lies mostly in being an advocate for an ideologically-based organization. People in both parties will ask themselves how Len Munsil can relate to and represent those who differ with him when he has been such a strident partisan for years. His lack of elected experience is NOT a factor, but it is relevant to ask how someone who has been a right-wing cheerleader for years can be the voice for all Arizonans.

Munsil benefits (as I have said in other contexts) from having a unified base that is excited about having him, Kyl and Graf heading the ticket in Southern Arizona, which could cut into traditional Democratic support, especially in border counties, but also in LD26 if Melvin and Jorgenson help to keep that conservative base excited and organized.

I certainly do hope Janet continues to run well in Maricopa County and that the turnout in Hispanic areas increases because she can not count on the large number of votes that came out of the Indian reservations four years ago when the gaming initiative was on the ballot. It would behoove Janet to continue to depict Munsil as extreme, but she should also talk a lot about what a Governor Munsil might do working with a Legislature that will still be contolled by the GOP. Thank back over the last four years about what would have been enacted rather than avoided if we had elected "Governor Salmon!" I shudder to consider that gloomy scenario and keeping both the past and the future in the mind of the voter will inevitably help Janet to run well in areas where the GOP is fractured, turn out minority voters and keep her own Democratic base pumped up and ready to do battle.

She will win, but we ought not think it will be easy or pretty.9/17/2006 08:24:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Rex,

As usual very articulate analysis. One note though, you do not need to worry about the conservative base in LD26 staying motivated and organized. That is a given.9/17/2006 09:13:00 AM|W|P|somanotes|W|P|2002 General Election also included an indepedent run from Mahoney. He got 84,947 votes.

Napolitano got 566,284 and Salmon got 554,465. These voters are pretty much happy with Napolitano. She has taken moderate positions on education, taxes, and immigration that I think will bring these voters to the Democratic fold.9/17/2006 10:48:00 AM|W|P|NetrootsDemocrat|W|P|A huge portion of indy voters are even to the left of what they perceive the Democratic Party as being. And, with candidates like Salmon in 2002, and people like Graf and Munsil this year, there's no reason for traditionally disaffected conservatives from registering as independent between 2002 and this year.

Thus, those indys, I would suspect, are not Munsil's lot of voters. Sorry, but Janet wins by eight to ten, considering she runs a half-way decent campaign.9/17/2006 11:33:00 AM|W|P|toc001|W|P|FOR MUNSIL, 'NON-PROFIT' IS VERY PROFITABLEEast Valley Tribune, Aug. 27, 2006

The Roman playwright Terence, and centuries later Charles Dickens, both get credited with saying, "Charity begins at home." But in Len Munsil's household, charity begins at home -- and stays there. His motto: Nice work if you can get it, tax exempt.

Munsil's prior gig, before deciding to run for governor, was heading the Center for Arizona Policy. CAP applied for and received what's called recognition of tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service. That means CAP gets all sorts of benefits under the tax code as a "social welfare organization." (And it also means that CAP's IRS filings are public records, available to any enterprising reporter, of which this market does not have a surplus.)

MONEY MATTERS

Heading CAP wasn't charity work; between 1997 and 2004, Munsil's compensation package exceeded $1.1 million, over $1 million in salary and another $117,000 in pension contributions. His salary in 2004 topped $200,000 -- and that's just his salary; over the years CAP also paid his wife more than $50,000 in salary and benefits.

A huge part of CAP's "social welfare" and "community benefit" mission was paying Len Munsil; his compensation package was almost half of CAP's total revenues in 1997, but he did grow the organization; despite his remuneration increasing by roughly 15 percent annually, his total compensation during the 1997-2004 period represented "only" an annual average of roughly 16 percent of CAP's revenues.

This is pretty amazing stuff for a humble nonprofit. But let me predict Munsil's reaction to accusations that he's less than charitable: He'll break out the "a Democrat attacked me!" card, as if the Lord spoke from Sinai saying, "Here are Ten Commandments -- but for Republicans, they're optional."

But when it comes to doing little but being paid lots for it, Munsil may be the most competent of the Republican gubernatorial candidates, and that ain't saying much. Quick: Name one thing any of the four GOP contenders has accomplished.

He's part of a small but significant group of moderate Repubs who were sickened by all the Repubs trying to out bigot one another during the primary.9/18/2006 10:25:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|I've always thought also that the system in Arizona was stacked heavily in favor of incumbents.

Examples include the 'two-to-a-district' representatives, which favors people who have been there and can run as a team, while not necessarily giving a challenger a fixed target, and the very late date of the primary. This last one is a real handicap to challengers, for example giving a candidate like Munsil only eight weeks (already down to seven) to hone in on the incumbent.

This usually works in favor of Republicans but in this case (as in the case of the Attorney General's race) it works in favor of the Democrats.

If I could write the law, I'd split all the legislative districts in half (giving legislators a smaller and more compact constituency) and would move the primary up at least a month.9/18/2006 10:31:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|I might also add, anecdotally but probably as an accurate reflection of what is going on elsewhere, I've met a number of people- Democrats, Republicans and Independents who supported Salmon (or Mahoney, or didn't vote) in 2002 but who now believe that the Governor has done a good enough job that they plan to vote for her this time. And that's another flaw in these guys thinking-- believing that everyone who voted for Salmon last time will vote for Munsil this time. That just isn't so-- and I strongly suspect that the number moving from Salmon to Napolitano is far larger than the number of any former Napolitano voters who plan to go the other way.9/16/2006 03:43:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I recieved an e-mail from Douglas Johnson, Vice-President of National Demographics Corporation, detailing some reasons the polling in the gubernatorial primary did not resemble the final results:

Here's the answer to the question you pose about why CD 8 surveys were so accurate when the poll about Pima views on the Gov primary were so far off:
CD 8 surveys included from 400 to 700 respondents in CD 8, giving them minimal margins of error.
In contrast, the Behavior Research Center talked to 627 voters STATEWIDE, and only 251 of them were Republicans.The report does not give the details by county, but odds are that less than 40 of those respondents were Pima County Republicans.
With 40 or fewer respondents, the margin of error for Pima County Republican views on the primary is insanely high, at least plus or minus 15 percent.
The temptation to announce survey subtotals is always strong, but often it's a mistake because the subsample size is simply too small to conclude anything from its results.

I guess size really DOES matter...9/15/2006 07:47:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Quick question for all y'all: the polling in the CD 8 race seemed to be spot on. However, in the Republican race for governor, the polling was way off. Don Goldwater was supposed to have a 2-1 lead against Len Munsil. His Pima County number was negligible in one survey, but his final number down here was a shade over 40%.
So, why were the polls generally accurate in the CD 8 race, but so far off in the governor's race?|W|P|115837607202471688|W|P|The Question (Not a Moody Blues Song)|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/15/2006 09:40:00 PM|W|P|Chris DeRose|W|P|Tedski

I don't think the polling on the Republican side was off. Don Goldwater was leading with slightly over 20%, and the poll showed an extremely high number of undecideds.

Munsil, who did not enjoy Goldwater's name recognition, had yet to send any direct mail or make any media buys.

Given the totals on election day, I believe the polling in the governor's race was accurate at the time the poll was taken.9/15/2006 10:52:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|If I remember correctly the CD 8 polling from the Tucson Weekly and Arizona Daily Star were done pretty close to election day.

The only poll that I know of where there was a head to head comparison on the Republican side was from 7-27-06 by the Behavior Research Center. Not exactly up to date. There may have been a more recent poll but I did not see it.9/15/2006 07:08:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Before he was a lobbyist and activist advocating for strengthening the institution of marriage, Len Munsil was a divorce attorney.
Well, so says a site called Len Munsil Facts that has just gone up in the last week or so.
It turns out that Munsil merely worked for a law firm that handled divorce law, but he personally could have not handled divorces at all. He could have worked the firm's other specialty: personal injury. I take it we won't see any standard issue Republican talking points railing against "trial lawyers" and for tort reform over the next two months.
The site is interesting. It includes tidbits from his career as the arch-conservative editor of the State Press, where he questioned the sanity of opponents of South African apartheid. In the mid-eighties, defending apartheid was a cause célèbre among campus conservatives. By the time I had gotten to the U of A, they had moved on to complaining about the Martin Luther King Jr. holliday. Neither of these had anything to do with race, I'm sure.
One question among some of us is, who the heck is funding the site? The site is paid for by the Arizona Conservative Trust. I guess this would imply that it is a Republican group. However, no one seems to have seen this site before the primary. The last filing shows no activity, but lists a Debra Dennis as chairman and a Thomas Kennedy as treasurer.
The "paid for by" statement declares that funding also came from another group called the Arizona Values Coalition. This group registered on September 5th, after the last filing period. The two officers listed have the improbable names Beau Memory and Seamus Perry.
Without a little mystery, what fun is life?|W|P|115837475361744097|W|P|I'm Still Mad I Don't Get to Post that Picture of Don del Oro Anymore|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/15/2006 07:03:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I saw Steve Huffman today. I told him, "At least you did better than me..."
His Blackberry was going constantly. He must have some other irons in the fire.
I actually don't know if he knew it was me. He knows my brother well, but I don't think I have seem him in person since way back before he first got elected.|W|P|115837248105614154|W|P|The Huff|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/15/2006 08:39:00 PM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|We have the conciliatory webpage remarks of:

Stevie9/16/2006 07:30:00 AM|W|P|Dogma|W|P|Wow... Little Stevie is still in a Huff ;-)9/15/2006 07:32:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Jon Kyl campaign made a big deal out of the endorsement of Luis González a few weeks back. Now, the Arizona Diamondbacks might cut him at the end of the season. I have a strong suspicion that the two events are not related, as much fun as it would be to allege that we Democrats have goons that can exact revenge on anyone not voting our way. Don't mess with us, man! Oh well.
Interestingly, González told Jim Pederson earlier in the year that he would be voting for him. Pederson should have known from his years in real estate to get everything in writing.
I thought it was funny that the Kyl campaign, who have been constantly complaining about Pederson's wealth, would brag about support from a guy that will make $10.6 million this year.
I was waiting for the Republicans to claim that González's support was indicative that Hispanics are ready to turn, en masse, to the Republican party. Of course, González is a Cuban-American, and in his birth state of Florida, Cubanos have been voting Republican for decades.
We hear that Hispanics are about to Republican every two years. You know, I haven't heard any of this talk over the last couple of months, why is that?
So, he endorsed Kyl, but it doesn't appear he'll have a chance to actually vote for him. Oh well.
I just want to know what Gonzo's dad, Mr. An, is doing this election.|W|P|115833204608365619|W|P|Kyl Voter May Have to Leave State|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/15/2006 04:41:00 PM|W|P|Randall Holdridge|W|P|Oh, Mr. An is on record. Both he and his wife are big Republican donors.

It doesn't really matter though; the town has many fine dining alternatives to Sakura.9/15/2006 06:00:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The old axiom in legislative politics is that if it is in another constituency, it is "waste" or "pork," while in your own it is called "investment."
Jon Kyl is running an ad now that says that it is pork no matter where it is.
I suppose this would be admirable, 'cept he doesn't always live by these words himself.
First of all, let's talk about "pork." One of the things I have always found ironic is that although Arizona has for the last few decades been considered a conservative state, we have been dependent on largesse from some far off government since the first time the Spaniards built their presidios and missions.
I talked to a guy from Raúl Grijalva's DC office around the time that Randy "Duke" Cunningham's scandal broke. He told me that some members use the so called "earmarks" (Yes, a word derived from hog farming) to fund ongoing local projects or new projects where there is a broad local consensus. The other kind, the kind that gives earmarks a bad name, is where a congressman will fund a project with little or no need. This is where such things as Cunningham's actions purchasing substandard equipment that the Army didn't want, and the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere" come in. I think anyone can see where fighting the latter is something that is necessary.
The difference would have been highlighted if Kyl had just used the unedited quote from Jim Pederson:

Bring the bacon home, they call that pork, but when you’re talking about highway spending, when you’re talking about university research grants, or you’re talking about certain critical services to our people. Many projects are going underfunded in this state because our Congressional delegation is not working to get that money to Arizona.

The fact is, we are paying federal taxes here too. Why not fight to make sure that where possible, money from Arizona taxpayers is spent here?
Kyl's protestations that Pederson's policies will run up huge tax bills and deficits would be easier to take if, in fact, Kyl was fighting higher deficits and waste in other areas. For example, in the last three years, he voted three times to increase the debt celing, and he also voted against "pay-as-you-go" rules that would have helped keep the deficit down. When he had a chance to vote to end the no-bid contracting in Iraq, which has led to waste and poor service for our troops as well as money that just can't be accounted for, he voted against it. He even voted against investigating it at all. So, when it is in Baghdad, Arizona it's "pork," what is it when it is in Baghdad, Iraq?
Kyl is against "pork" in Arizona, but doesn't seem to have trouble fighting for it in other areas. One particularly infamous bill was S 1637, called the JOBS Act. This bill started as a repeal of an export subsidy and replace it with incentives to help US companies. The bill quickly became a legislative bacchanal, and $170 billion in tax breaks were sutured to the bill. Kyl added a $92 million tax break for of all things, NASCAR. NASCAR's last television deal was for $2.4 billion, and the brothers that control the operation have a net worth topping $1 billion, but Kyl thinks they need a tax break more than Arizonans need money for our roads. Maybe if we would all wear sponsor logos and turn left a bit more...
I suppose that Kyl's definition of "pork" is money not requested by the right lobbyists.|W|P|115832835121668671|W|P|The Other White Meat|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/15/2006 10:06:00 AM|W|P|Michael|W|P|Ah, that's the stuff.

The politicians who decry "pork" - even that spending which enjoys a large consensus - are the very same politicians who would like to see government shrunk to the size that it could be drowned in a bathtub.

Earmarks are not inherently bad. In fact, they do a lot of good for organizations and local governments who can't find funding elsewhere in this godawful Bush economy.

You know, without federal highway dollars, I-10 would be a lot more treacherous to navigate. Maybe all this anti-pork talk is a veiled attempt to keep the more level-headed legislators from outside Maricopa County from being able to make it to the legislature...9/14/2006 06:26:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|What's this I'm hearing that former long time Democratic leader Art Hamilton is endorsing current Republican Speaker Jim Weiers for re-election?
At first I wondered if this had something to do with his current career as a lobbyist. Weiers will be running for speaker against Andy Biggs. Weiers would be better for his business than Biggs. However, the speculation I'm hearing now is that it has to do with a school board race. Apparently, the Arizona Education Association endorsed a candidate against a candidate that Hamilton was supporting. Because of this, the story goes, Hamilton is endorsing Weiers over Democrat Jackie Thrasher, a long-shot but good candidate supported by the AEA.
Hamilton's career as both a politician and activist served as an example for me when I was a young activist. This is a guy who in his early 20's personally went toe-to-toe with William Rehnquist when the man was trying to intimidate black and hispanic voters. His actions in opposition to Evan Mecham gave those of us out here a sense that our state could produce leadership that we could be proud of. His words often carried a wisdom and moral force; I always felt honored to get a word of advice from the man. Hamilton was also someone who encouraged and helped younger legislators in the Democratic caucus. It's tragic that he would turn his back on this admirable record to, in essence, endorse all of the stupidity that the legislature has tried to force on the state over the last few years.|W|P|115824249035623988|W|P|Art Hamilton: Off of My List|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/15/2006 10:49:00 AM|W|P|EnoughBS|W|P|Tragically, that's only the start. He's also sold out to Eddie Basha and is fighting against workers at Bashas mostly Latino Food City stores.9/15/2006 06:07:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Art Hamilton not only went to my high school, he also was the first politician I ever saw in person.

Hmmmm9/14/2006 05:54:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well, one of the things I knew about my loss was that some of the folks that post on here would try to bludgeon me with it. Even before I lost, one local blogger, who apparently hates me for being a friend of Gabrielle Giffords, took a potshot at me for being a lazy campaigner. It would have been easier to buy this if I hadn't read it after coming home from walking a neighborhood. It also would have been easier to buy if it hadn't come from a person whose political activism seems to consist only of poorly spelled invective hurled at Giffords and Patty Weiss.
Yesterday, I got a sweet little note from former State Representative Mark Thompson:

Hey Tedski,
A whopping 10.6%... WOW; congrats!
Can you say “Karma”?

There were all sorts of reasons why I lost: the main one being that Steve Farley locked down a lot of support very early before I could get a start. Given that he was on the ballot only a few months before this campaign got underway, this was understandable. Also, I was hoping to take some time off of work in the weeks before the primary, but the sudden illness of my supervisor made that impossible. I suppose that if I had the advantages of incumbency, I would have placed higher than fourth. I wouldn't guess that former Rep. Thompson would know anything about that.
The funny part is why the heck Thompson decided to write me in the first place. I mean, why is it even worthwhile? Hearing that I'm getting under the skin of certain Maricopa County Republicans only gives me an inflated ego and just means I'll write more. Maybe writing me made him feel better, since his political career seems to be over.
I went back to see what I said to prompt this. I did write one mildly nasty post about him, but if he can't handle that, then it's best for him that he's out of public life. And heck, it wasn't any worse than what people in his own party have said about him. (Scroll down to "Look Back in Anger")
Well, keep those cards and letters coming, folks.|W|P|115824014417072335|W|P|Word of Advice to Folks that Send Me Snippy e-Mails: It Only Encourages Me|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/14/2006 08:11:00 AM|W|P|Liza|W|P|Tedski,Maybe you're too sensitive for politics.

You know, I think that we, the electorate, should be very appreciative of those people who come forward to run for public office. Unless you're a well-known, well-loved, well-funded incumbent, it has to be pretty rough. Quite frankly, I am absolutely certain that I could never subject myself to that kind of public scrutiny, and I think we need to acknowledge those who do.

So, Tedski, for what its worth, thanks for trying.9/14/2006 08:39:00 AM|W|P|Sonoran Sam|W|P|Tedski.

If I lived in Dist. 28 I would have voted for your in a heartbeat, and I'm proud to support the other Prezelski's re-election bid.

The Legislature's loss is the Blogosphere's gain.

Rock on.9/14/2006 08:56:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Some of us don't have the guts to put our names up here like you do, much less run for office and take the scrutiny. I hope you run again in the future. Either way, I too would have a lot more time on my hands if you didn't have such an intriguing blog to read. Thanks.9/14/2006 09:38:00 AM|W|P|Thane Eichenauer|W|P|I am curious exaclty what the 10.6% represents?9/14/2006 09:43:00 AM|W|P|Tom-AZ|W|P|haha,

Well Ted, I was sad to see you get your butt kicked so bad - I'll admit it. Next time I'll run your campaign for you if you want - then you will lose, but maybe by less :) Oh yeah -- I'll do it for a small fee of course.

Now, you didn't do well - and I'm sure we could come up with things you did wrong, talk about how tough it is to be a first time candidate etc.

Here is the deal though ...

Former Rep. Mark Thompson from D17 got DEAD LAST PLACE in the general election in 2004.

I mean -- Marky, if I remember correctly your shiny head used to adorn the legislative chamber ... you know AS AN INCUMBENT.

But - sadly - despite the power of having been in office while up for reelection, something Tedski doesn't have, - you lost. Now, you didn't get third. NOPE you got FOURTH, losing .... TO A 26 YEAR OLD KID.

Of course Mark, that whole taking advantage of old people and misusing your office PROBABLY didn't help.

And being hated by other republicans in the district, being known as a lazy candidate, and not being the brightest bulb in the bucket - all lead to your embarassing ass wooping.

Ted, while you might not be the best politician out there - you sure have made the RIGHT enemies.

Few people are as RANK as Thompson who is possibly the least intelligent member of the Legislature we have had in several years (and that says A LOT), one of the most cold hearted individuals I have ever come across, and - of course - the poster child for ethical impropriety down at the capital.

Mark, when is your big political comeback? I suggest becoming a Libertarian - then you only need a few signatures to get on the ballot (which fits nicely with your lazy reputation) nobody REALLY expects you to win (which sits nicely with the reality of you making a come back) and both the Republicans and Democrats will be united against you (which is already the case).

Great post, mister t in az! LMAO9/14/2006 11:14:00 AM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|For LD28 House I voted Bradley and Heinz. Ted, I just didn't think you were running a serious campaign. Since you explained some of your limits on this site, it makes more sense now.

I still don't understand two things. Why your photo was not up on the Pima Democrats website and why you didn't have a campaign website. You are the most Internet savvy of the candidates it would appear since you have your own blog yet you never put up a website (which you could have done free with Blogger). That would have been a way for you to get your positions out and let supporters then print them out to walk their neighborhoods on your behalf. I could not find your position papers at Democratic HQ and only saw one poorly designed flyer for you. So, while I think you seem like a person genuinely interested in politics, as my second choice I went with Heinz. I knew he was a long shot but he ran a good campaign.9/14/2006 12:17:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The thing that bugged me about the lack of photo on the Pima County site was the guy that kept that site up to date was...the guy that took my photo for my lit. I don't know why he never posted it.9/14/2006 04:16:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Ted, I am sorry you lost. And I feel bad that I could not help you campaign. :(9/14/2006 05:44:00 PM|W|P|Michael|W|P|I may be the only reader here who actually voted for you!

I was sorry to see you didn't pull it out. Hope you run for something else. It definitely takes cajones to put yourself out there like that.

I was inundated with mailers for LD28. And I live in an apartment -which are usually the first to be nixed in the interest of cost cutting - so that's saying something. Interestingly, most of the mailers for the House race were from Heinz. Made me wonder how he was getting funded...?9/14/2006 06:22:00 PM|W|P|TimWilsonAZ|W|P|Wow, Thompson is a wanker.

It takes guts to get out there and take all those blows. I'm glad we in the blogosphere have someone like Tedski that has those cajones.9/14/2006 06:53:00 PM|W|P|eckeric|W|P|Hey, Tedski had almost as many votes as Latas and more than A-Rod. And next time he will do better since volunteers will not all be sucked into CD 8.9/14/2006 08:13:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|For a while I thought Ted actually got more votes then Tom but that changed. Darn I was so hoping to tease Tom about that.9/15/2006 12:24:00 AM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|Hey, I thought the 'coneheads' were just a "Saturday Night Live" skit.

I know. Be nice. Be nice. Be nice.

(guffaw.)9/13/2006 09:50:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Think of the mess we could have avoided if she had just pulled out that 1994 election...|W|P|115820953249364692|W|P|Governor Ann Richards, 1933-2006|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/13/2006 10:38:00 PM|W|P|Erik|W|P|She stood up for her principals and vetoed legislation that would allow people to carry concealed handguns, automatic weapons and so-called “cop-killer bullets.”

This single-handedly cost her re-election in 1994 and was the start of Bush's rise to power. Sad from one veto but she had no regrets vetoing that bill. Unfortunately, it didn't fly well with Texas voters.

Thanks Governor Richards for all you did for the State of Texas. You made us Texans proud even after you left office.

If you never got to meet her, you missed out on one classic witty Big-Haired Texan women the state had to offer in the last 50 years. Truly a legend.9/14/2006 01:28:00 AM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|One classy lady that will be deeply missed.9/13/2006 01:50:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Randy Graf, as quoted in this morning's Arizona Daily Star:

|W|P|115818074064216522|W|P|Then He Woke Up|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/13/2006 02:24:00 PM|W|P|Liza|W|P|Tedski,Is it possible that you might be projecting your own desires onto Mr. Graf? I have a feeling he has fantasies about Ms. Giffords that are very different from your own.9/13/2006 02:32:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|I actually thought the comment displayed a good sense of humor.9/13/2006 03:13:00 PM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|heh heh heh

Also got a chuckle out of the languaging and had reaction similar to PK.

A little curious, Liza, about your having a feeling about Graf's fantasies.9/13/2006 03:49:00 PM|W|P|Liza|W|P|x4mr,No, he's not my type if that's what you're thinking. All of my husbands and boyfriends have been much taller.

Anyhow, here's something kind of funny for you guys. My husband is a golf fanatic and he's actually a very good player. I asked him how a background in golf would be beneficial to someone in the House of Representatives. He thinks about this and says, "When you play golf you have to have a razor sharp focus on what you are doing. You have to totally concentrate on your goal and you can't allow yourself to think about the mistakes you made on previous holes."

I have to admit, I'm still wondering if all that means anything. Maybe Randy can do something with it...

phx kid,I thought the same. Its Tedski who needs the cold shower.9/13/2006 04:05:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Nah, Ted's madcap love affair with Gabby was over a long time ago, she cried, he was strongly silent and I am going to get throttled the next time both of them see me.9/13/2006 04:41:00 PM|W|P|cpmaz|W|P|Elizabeth - would that throttling be before or after the general election?

I mean, throttling a normal person is one thing, but throttling a JP has to be a felony or something.

That might stop Tedski's next run for office in its tracks.

Of course, you *are* a state-renowned wiseass...they might just cut him a little slack.

:))9/13/2006 05:51:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Nah, it was provoked.9/14/2006 01:25:00 AM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Don't underestimate Graf. He is not the easy mark you all think he is and can be completely charming, witty and engaging. He can turn the most far out positions into something that actually sounds reasonable depending on how he spins it. I could take every one of his positions and make it sound logical to the average Pima voter. And if you think Giffords' supporters are gung ho, sit down with some Graf supporters. They think he is the second coming of Jesus or something.

Remember, Arizona voters aren't that bright to begin with.

Giffords will need to keep her same pace and not slack off in her campaign to beat him. She needs to spend more time in Southern Arizona and not be in DC or Houston during this time. Let her handlers take the DC trips on her behalf.9/14/2006 06:01:00 AM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|Graf is indeed fortunate that he will be part of a united, fired-up and sure to be well-funded conservative ticket with Munsil, Kyl, Montgomery and (up here in the Northwest) Melvin and Jorgenson. This is a big challenge for Democrats statewide as such a ticket could cut into the vote margin we usually get in Southern Arizona and endanger both Napolitano and Pederson, not to mention local candidates. I will also acknowledge the fact that Graf is a disciplined and focused candidate and those qualities helped him to be named the whip in his caucus during just his second term in Phoenix.

The hope is to get independents (who don't usually go with the far right or far left) and the few remaining moderate Republicans to close ranks with a Democratic Party that needs to turn out ALL of its voters. That means more than just painting the GOP as narrow or extreme; it also means laying out a cogent agenda addressing immigration/border security, health care, education and a myriad of other issues. What is both inspiring and reassuring is that we have articulate and well-funded candidates who can get that message across.

Were I Giffords, I'd be pointing to exactly why Graf talks so much about immigration: he is remarkably out of touch when it comes to most other issues. His voting record in the Legislature aligns him squarely with the unpopular and failed leaders of both that body and the U.S. Congress. I do think Gabby can and should engage Graf on immigration, but I think she should also describe in vivid detail why Graf dwells on the topic at length.9/14/2006 06:08:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|I agree -- while Graf's positions may seem outrageous to us when we look at them in print, he has a gift for making them seem very reasonable when he is speaking.9/14/2006 09:10:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Very interesting post Rex. On immigration, I think it is going to be important to dispell the "myths" and that is a hard thing to do in a campaign. It is very easy to be knee-jerk for or against something very complex that is made so very simple.

With immigration, some already argue that Giffords supports amnesty when she clearly does not. She will have to get that message across. Still, there is a very interesting divide in the Republican party when the complexity of the issue is reached. There is a GREAT need for labor in S. Arizona. As we grow and develop to the east and to the north toward Phoenix, we will need skilled and excellent builders. We need them now and use them now to the tune of thousands of undocumented workers. The businesses that hire them can't possibly support Graf. In addition there is the issue of "No More Deaths" and the humanitarian issues that go along with why so many come here and the demand for them. Guest worker programs and the reality that there are 12 million here already (a path to citizenship) gets at the complexity this problem.

In addition, the cost of walling off America (tax wise and culturally) is enormous. Who will pay for those walls? Who will build them in 120 degree heat (immigrants???...like the Chinese built our railroad infrastructure)?

I don't know how we can get at the humanity of this issue and how we can argue with the voters who are so knee-jerk (what party of illegal don't you understand? is one example). It is clear to me that the conservatives have won the culture war so far on this issue. Peoples attitudes about law reflect the simplicity of the issue and law and order. This is not changing as the rhetoric of Democrats match that rhetoric in its simplicity.

I would like us to talk a little more about what the middle should be in this issue, find the constituencies that will harmed by the extremist positions and court them. In the process, in order to work toward a solution...and a win...we must teach.9/14/2006 10:58:00 AM|W|P|Liza|W|P|Dang, this thread got serious.

Rex says: "That means more than just painting the GOP as narrow or extreme; it also means laying out a cogent agenda addressing immigration/border security, health care, education and a myriad of other issues."

Well, now you have my attention. It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that the small amount of pressure on the Democratic Party to actually stand for something is coming from a place considerably left of center.

How soon we forget. A "leftist" group had a two page ad in "The Nation" (9-26) that is really profound, to say the least. I have to type this excerpt because its not on the web, but here it is:

"Twelve years ago Newton Leroy Gingrich assembled an army of well-scrubbed young Republicans, equipped them with a ten-point 'Contract with America' and sent them out to do battle with Democrats. All they accomplished was to win 53 seats, take over the House, and turn Bill Clinton into a Republican."

"1994 was not unlike today. A president loses the confidence of the people. There's a queasy, spreading sense of gloom: Is the country going to hell? But that similarity does not entirely explain Gingrich's success.Gingrich succeeded because he honored the First Law of Competition: You can't beat something with nothing. He gave his minions ideas. They were old ideas. They were bad ideas. But they were not nothing." (end quote)

The Democrats, as far as I know, have not converged on anything other than raising the minimum wage (duh) and not privatizing Social Security. If there is anything else they agree on, as a Party, I'm not aware of it.

You can't be discussing what you represent on September 14 when the election is in November. The Republicans have subjected the nation to one debacle after another for six years, and the Democrats aren't sure they can pick up 15 seats in the House. That's because all they have to offer that you can count on is that they aren't registered as Republicans.

And, interestingly enough, I filled out a survey about two weeks ago for Howard Dean. I was chosen because I'm still a precinct committeeperson. There were questions about Iraq, Social Security, whatever...The Democrats are trying to figure it out. What a relief, huh?9/14/2006 06:14:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|You know, I am so sick and tired of being told my party has no ideas.

We have asix point plan on our website, our national chairman among other party leaders talks about it during interviews and yet...all you EVER hear is that we do not have one!

Do we have to wear t-shirts? Do we need to tattoo it on our foreheads? What do we have to do? Force every Democratic candidate to toe one line only? (Which would be completely un-Democratic of the party.)9/14/2006 07:23:00 PM|W|P|Liza|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers,Are you serious? That's the plan?That isn't even a good VISION STATEMENT.

Take this one, for example: "We will join 36 other industrialized nations in making sure everyone has access to affordable health care, starting by fixing the prescription drug program and investing in stem cell and other medical research."

Yes, all 50 million of you working poor out there who are getting payday loans to feed your family, just hang in there, the Democrats are coming with "affordable health care". We have absolutely no idea what that means but we do know that it will be "affordable" and it will be "healthcare."

The other five points are equally vague and, to spare you, I won't even get started on foreign policy. And, no one has heard of the six points, so it won't have much of an impact.

Face it, the Democrats are trying to get by in 2006 on "vote the bums out." We're supposed to trust that they will start doing all the right things if they can only take back the House and the Senate.

Well, I'm a lifelong Independent who is temporarily a Democrat, and it just doesn't satisfy me. Now I find myself thinking about something Ronald Reagan said and I don't particularly like him but one thing he said has resonated with me for many years. He said that you can't enlighten Congress, you enlighten the people, and they put pressure on Congress. He's right, of course. Constructive social and political changes originate with populist movements and that's almost always been the case. And, like I said, the pressure seems to be building on the left to motivate the Democrats to start converging on some REAL direction. Unfortunately, the Democrats are so worried about 2008, they are almost paralyzed.9/14/2006 09:06:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Liza,

Well you asked for a plan. I pointed out our plan. Why no incredibly detailed legislation? Because 1. this is from the national party and not from someone in Congress like with the Republican ideas and 2. unlike the Republicans we understand that legislation is not something easy to throw together and get passed. By being flexible with details we can actually get what we want done without having the Republicans either trash or steal our ideas (only to ruin them and say that it is our fault because we thought them up.) And this also means we can let each candidate discuss them in their own way.

Of the original Contract with America, only 2 provisions made it past the Senate. And one of them caused Enron. Plus most people never heard of it. The reason that the Republicans won is they had effective campaigning, a tired opposition plagued by scandals and an unpopular president to run against. Sounds familiar does it not?

Now as to people forcing change: Slavery, Women's Right to Vote, Civil Rights movement. Yes it does take the people pushing the government to change. By electing different people, getting the states to experiment and other things like that.9/15/2006 05:47:00 AM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|Liza-

Plans that are put before voters are general in their scope because the meat and potatoes behind implementing them comes later when legislation is proposed, debated, revised and then passed. I'm happy that Elizabeth pointed out the Democrats' plan because it speaks to our commitments and priorities. It also offers a vivid contrast to the GOP, whose plans are evident by what they have made their priorities while controlling the legislative agenda.

I think it's also important to point out that plenty of Democrats not considered to be left of center are putting forth fresh and thought-provoking ideas. They include governors such as Tim Kaine in Virginia, Mike Easley in North Carolina and our own Janet Napolitano. I would also give a nod to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who has also served as a governor and who is putting forth some terrific proposals in the areas of energy policy and national service.

As someone who was an independent for four years and who was a Republican for twelve years before that, I get that the two parties frustrate and perplex many voters. Part of that is what occurs when factions within those parties vie with each other for control of the party. You see that happening in the GOP right now in both our state and the nation as a whole.

Nevertheless, I am proud to be a Democrat at this stage in our nation's political history and hope that I will always feel a part of this great party. I also hope that divergent views and open, honest debate will always be a part of being a Democrat. Exclusivity and intolerance were what caused me to leave the Republicans in 2000.9/15/2006 09:10:00 AM|W|P|Liza|W|P|Elizabeth and Rex,Interesting comments and I appreciate what you're saying. I fully understand that details must be preceded by main points which must be preceded by concepts, etc...I spent many years building process models for software developers and I am very familiar with "drilling down" techniques.

I would just point out two things:1. Hardly anyone knows about the six points so they are unlikely to impact the election.2. Your six points are highly conceptual and they exclude many areas of vital concern such as foreign policy.

In other words, you need to expand your concepts and "drill down."

I feel I'm beating a dead horse, but take Social Security for example. Social Security is the crown jewel of Democratic achievement. Here's what you say:

"We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, starting with pension reform, expanding saving incentives and preventing the privatization of social security."

This might be your best point, because everyone understands something about Social Security privatization now thanks to Dubya. However, most Americans don't know a great deal about the Social Security Trust Fund. The Democrats should commit to honoring the trillions of dollars of debt that is owed to the SSTF and the Democrats should commit to stop using the Social Security surplus to disguise the real level of annual federal budget deficits. In other words, Democrats, say SOMETHING REAL. Drill down, build consensus, and win more elections.

I respect the fact that you are proud to be Democrats and I envy your optimism. However, optimism is a feeling and, in this case, it must be supported by realistic, substantive ideas that the voters will embrace as a new direction.

Lastly, you need to listen. I think there are some very good messages going your way. You need to listen.

Social Security was defended, I felt, quite successfully by the Democrats.

Also, when it comes to foriegn policy, we are internationalists who believe in building relationships with other countries and using our influence to stop human rights abuses (not that we always succeed at this but...) yet foriegn policy is something that a President is the main point person on (usually through the Secretary of State.) Exactly how do you expect the Democrats in Congress to do the President's job?9/15/2006 04:30:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|S.admt 4936

Found this on the DU. This looks like a plan (even if it was shot down.)9/13/2006 01:29:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I had a conversation a few years ago with a Phoenix area political hack who told me that soon there would be a time when a Democrat would not have to campaign outside of Phoenix. For years in Republican primaries, a candidate could carry Maricopa county and nothing else (Jane Hull, for example, lost most of the counties outside of Maricopa in her 1994 primary), but Democrats had to be everywhere. This operative told me that soon would be a day where Democratic candidates from Phoenix, like their Republican counterparts, would not have to bother with visiting Bisbee, Yuma, Flagstaff or even Tucson. He talked about this like it was going to be heaven.
Well, apparently, that day isn't here yet. I know that Slade Mead made several appearances down here, but Jason Williams busted his ass. I found myself face to face with his school bus while making a left on Speedway yesterday. I got mail from Williams, never from Mead. Bear in mind that I voted for Mead. Williams carried every county but one, some of them by ridiculous margins. He carried Apache County, for example, by a nearly three to one margin. The one that Williams did not carry? Maricopa county, where he was bested by a scant 77 votes.
So, it appears that Pima County and Greater Arizona still hold some sway in Democratic primaries. My boots do need some shining...
NB - I introduced Slade Mead to Pat Darcy once. Darcy, a Tucson resident and Democrat, was the unlucky pitcher that gave up the famous run to Carlton Fisk in game six of the 1975 World Series. Mead was at the game, but didn't have the heart to tell Darcy that he was rooting for the Red Sox.|W|P|115817998879393450|W|P|Superintendent of Public Instruction Thoughts|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/13/2006 04:00:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well is there anything wrong with Jason Williams?9/13/2006 04:10:00 PM|W|P|Liza|W|P|elizabeth rogers,Jason Williams is as good as it gets. If you ever get a chance to hear him speak, do it. He is one of the most articulate, eloquent speakers I have heard in my life and I am not easy to impress. Truthfully, Jason and Slade were both great candidates. I attended one of their debates several months ago and everyone loved both of them. It was really kind of funny and something you rarely see.

I hesitate to endorse Jason because all my favorites end up being losers and I'm not sure if its me or them. Maybe I'll just send him money.

By the way, Jason needs money. He did not run as a clean elections candidate and he needs money. I don't know why he didn't run clean elections.9/13/2006 04:54:00 PM|W|P|Randall Holdridge|W|P|Jason Williams told me that the reason he wasn't "running clean" was that he had been advised that it would not give him enough money to run statewide against a well-known incumbent.

Of course that means he's got to get the money.9/13/2006 06:39:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Hell...I will write him a check...I respect most people who do work for Teach for America....and I'd like to get rid of Horne. I was impressed that Williams was able to overcome Mead. I mean, Mead had name recognition and all, but he also was a republican legislator. Does that account for his loss or was it Williams' ability to outwork and out network him among Democrats?

This is interesting.9/13/2006 08:19:00 PM|W|P|Liza|W|P|kralmajales,Jason Williams is a brilliant man and it takes very little time for him to convey that to an audience. I was literally in awe of him and I don't know diddly-squat about public education in Arizona. Also, Jason is an educator where Slade is not and Jason is very passionate about being an educator. I honestly don't think Slade's Republican roots hurt him. When I attended the debate with Jason and Slade, people in the the audience were saying how hard it would be to choose between them.

I strongly encourage everyone to support Jason. He is a man on fire when it comes to education. is9/13/2006 08:27:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Okay Liza.9/14/2006 01:19:00 AM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|I admit I voted for Jason because Mead's Republican background bothered me a great deal.

I talked to a mix of people who voted for Mead then others for Jason. It seems a lot of people who voted for Jason did not come out vocally for him but secretly voted for him thinking they would be one of only a few. Well, it turns out there were more of us than them and he won!9/13/2006 01:20:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Suprise! Janet Napolitano won. She won every precinct in every county. Whodathunk it?
On the Republican side, on the surface it looks like organization trumped name id. But if you look at where Don Goldwater did well, it was in the border counties. He carried every single one, his best being Yuma County where he got nearly 60% of the vote. He also carried La Paz and Mohave counties. This leads me to wonder if this was more than Len Munsil's organization versus Goldwater's name, that it was more about Munsil's softer immigration stance versus Goldwater's round 'em up stance.
I heard talk of a Mormon - Evangelical split that was highlighted by Goldwater's support by LDS legislators and Munsil's endorsement by others. I always wondered when this would happen, since theologically the two groups shouldn't get along. I don't have precinct data, but when I take a look at a counties with large Mormon populations, Graham, Apache et cetera, Munsil carried those. Doesn't look like this schism actually happened. The "split" may have been more among Maricopa County politicians than among actual voters.|W|P|115817920653928420|W|P|Governor Thoughts|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/13/2006 01:32:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|If you are dreaming of a split between LDS and Evangelicals dream on.

Check the results in LD 26 Senate Republican primary. The two groups are very comfortable working together on the grass roots level.9/13/2006 05:09:00 PM|W|P|Michael|W|P|The unexpected results in LD26 may have something to do with a significant number of moderate independents choosing to vote in the Dem primary for the CD8 race because many of them (those I know, anyway) are die-hard Gabby supporters.

Not the only explanation, but neither is assuming a hard-right turn of the electorate in LD26.9/13/2006 06:42:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Michael:

Interesting theory. I bet it holds true for some voters. However, I would also suspect that this has more to do with national trends showing most republicans in the doldrums and not excited about voting for their party. If a good number of the moderates and even liberals stay home (as they are apt to do in a primay) it leaves more of the extremes voting. In past primaries you could count on conservatives dominating, but also other party loyals. I think the moderate, Bob Dole type of Republican, stayed home in this one...they might also do so in the fall...or cross lines.9/15/2006 11:25:00 AM|W|P|Jane|W|P|hey, i stumbled across this site yesterday and after reading your blog, i think you might be into it:

www.lenmunsilfacts.com

enjoy your weekend!9/13/2006 01:15:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Associated Press is reporting that Jim Kolbe is refusing to endorse Randy Graf.|W|P|115817876506813417|W|P|It Starts Here!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/13/2006 01:28:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Oh darn! I know Randy was really counting on Jim to fall in line and support him.

Kolbe’s endorsement means so much since the last guy he supported did so well.9/13/2006 06:44:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Phx...

I very well might matter in a general election...and with the party ties and money Randy will need to win in the fall.

This may be a lesson in negative campaigning. If you beat somebody up too badly (especially somebody in your own party) especially with over the line personal attacks, then you may end up paying the price for it down the road. We assume that Democratic politicans are first and foremost Democrats and the Republican politicians are first and foremost Republicans, but we forget that they are first and foremost human beings, who can be hurt, offended or angered just like other people.9/13/2006 01:02:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I'm, of course, happy for Gabrielle Giffords. When I saw that Randy Graf v Steve Huffman was going to be close, I was hoping for one of those days long recounts plus, because of the way this race has gone, the recriminations and lawsuits. Darn.
As for some of her opponents: Bob Walkup will probably not run for re-election next year, and Mayor of Tucson would be a great office for Patty Weiss to run for. Heck, it would mean she could be over Nina Trasoff again, just like in those ratings battles in 1982. I was always impressed by Jeff Latas, but I think he was poorly served by the "we are the only ones who care and everyone else sucks" attitude of some of his supporters. Alex Rodriguez's future will be governed by whether he is seen as a ambitious go-getter, or some young punk who is too big for his britches. He conducted himself well in this campaign, so I'm guessing the former.
Props to Weiss, who personally showed up to Giffords's victory party to congratulate and publicly pledge her support to her.
It looks like the national money (late support came in not only from the NRCC but in the form of contributions from state Republican parties in Colorado and New Mexico) may have boosted Huffman, but not quite enough.
There is a rumor going around here in Blogistan that the NRCC will abandon this seat since Graf is the nominee. Not a chance. They need to hold this seat. If we get into October and Graf is still ten or eleven points behind, maybe they'll pull out. But, look how far behind Huffman was when they started shoveling money into the race.
As for the DCCC, they are not taking this for granted, NRCC money or no.
One more word on those NRCC ads. Who, in Tucson, has ever refered to the mayor as "Robert"? This is what happens when those out of towners jump in.|W|P|115817852304992873|W|P|CD 8 Thoughts|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/13/2006 03:49:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Wow, that is pretty decent of Weiss. My opponent has yet to concede or maybe he does not have my number. But then do write-ins concede?9/13/2006 06:54:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Yeah, I know many Democrats were hoping for a Joe Sweeney victory, but the fact that a major party in 21st century America nominated a bigotted, paranoid moron like him against a not-great-but-adequate opponent in 2004 made me wonder if this whole democracy thing was such a great idea. A Raúl Grijalva - Ron Drake race will be an interesting battle of ideas...oh wait, Drake will actually have to campaign down here. In person even.
Will Drake debate Grijalva? He was too scared to debate Sweeney, even though he would have routed him.
Easy prediction: Sweeney will run again in 2008.|W|P|115815879041250970|W|P|CD 7 Thoughts|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/13/2006 01:15:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P||W|P|115813541202608223|W|P|CD 8 Primary Result, Plus Bonus Prediction for TRD Championship|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/13/2006 07:51:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Gabby Giffords and her staff, supporters, and volunteers ran one of the most impressive campaigns I have seen in many years. Despite the criticism early on, she defeated one of the most recognized personalities in Southern Arizona and she did it without attack ads.

Although I had differences with her campaign and supporters, Patty Weiss, Fank Costanzo, and her staff were a class act in showing up last night at the party to publicly endorse her on stage. Best to them and we will need their support to beat Graf this fall.9/13/2006 08:37:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Yes, Weiss showing up at the Giffords party last night (Alex Rodriguez did too) was an extremely classy move, and she handled it well. Kudos to her.

Hopefully that act by her will help us all get united behind Giffords for the general.9/13/2006 12:12:00 PM|W|P|UAgoldstein|W|P|Very happy for Gabby and her people -- I think she'll make a very good member of Congress.

I agree -- Patty showed real class last night by showing up and making sure people know her support of the nominee is unwavering.9/13/2006 09:00:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|*speculates who on earth that car could belong to with Buzzcocks right under the Gabby sign*9/14/2006 02:35:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|Excellent to hear about the show of unity.

As I've posted on Ted's blog innumerable times, our failure to do that in district one very probably cost us the seat in 2002 against Richmond Rickey.

So glad to see that you folks aren't making the same mistake down there. If anything, with Kolbe refusing to endorse Graf, it looks like the Republicans are the ones more likely to face the results of fractionation.9/13/2006 01:10:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P||W|P|115813509981757654|W|P|Don de las Aguas Doradas Ponders Political Future|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/13/2006 08:49:00 AM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|And so it has come to pass. The "Christian" right-wing nuts beat the immigration right-wing nuts.

Something else I read in there was that while Tomás Tancredo has been actively supporting Randy Graf, his own Republican party wrote a check to Steve Huffman. Tancredo's people have had the requisite show of indignation for that one.|W|P|115808297111474066|W|P|Last Minute CD-8 Roundup|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/12/2006 12:25:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|what is an e-partment?9/12/2006 12:26:00 PM|W|P|Mister T in AZ|W|P|Stealing this thread for a minute ... I'm doing a blogosphere "exit poll" to get an idea how we as a whole feel about the dem primary elections. Visit www.wactivist.com to vote.9/12/2006 12:35:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Would you believe that e-partment is hip internet slang?

No?

Well, I fixed the typo.9/12/2006 01:41:00 PM|W|P|UAgoldstein|W|P|I hope Patty Weiss' communications guy writes a nice concession speech for tonight... and I hope he personally apologizes to Patty for single-handedly torpedoing her campaign.

As far as the speech goes, I have a suggestion: have her start out with the same line she used in the now-famous youtube video... "gabby, gabby, gabby." As in "I'm endorsing gabby, gabby, gabby."9/12/2006 02:34:00 PM|W|P|Mister T in AZ|W|P|ua - why do you hate andrew myers so much? You know him? Is it personal? Did he sleep with your girlfriend or something?

It seems a little more intense than necessary.9/12/2006 03:52:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Actually Ted since you are way more hip then I am (even if you use the word hip) I would believe it.9/12/2006 03:52:00 PM|W|P|